Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-2930,92-2930 |
| Citation | 626 So.2d 263 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2246 Lorraine M. GREENLEAF and her Husband, Albert M. Greenleaf, Appellants, v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack Gale, Port St. Lucie, for appellants.
Shelley H. Leinicke of Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O'Hare, McCoy, Graham & Lane, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Lorraine M. Greenleaf and her husband, Albert M. Greenleaf, appeal an adverse summary judgment in favor of Amerada Hess Corporation, in what is generically referred to as a slip and fall case. Finding that genuine issues of material fact exist as to negligent maintenance and appellee's constructive notice, we reverse.
Appellee runs a combination self-service gas station and food mart. Appellants had stopped for gas. As appellant Lorraine Greenleaf was returning to her car after paying for the gas in the mart, she slipped on a substance identified, alternatively, as water with oil, clear oil or oil. According to the deposition testimony of appellant Lorraine Greenleaf, the spill was only five to six feet from the glass door of the mart where appellee's employee could potentially see the spill and was large enough that she was "soaked" when she fell in it.
In addition, Lois Barker, appellee's former employee who was on duty at the time, testified in her deposition that cleaning of the exterior of the premises was supposed to be done nightly, but that no one usually inspected to insure that this had occurred. She also testified that because she was "pretty sure I was by myself" on the specific day appellant Lorraine Greenleaf was injured, no one would have checked to see if the pump area had been cleaned the previous night. If this was ever done, the manager would be the person doing the inspection. During the day, appellee's employees never went outside to clean up or inspect, venturing outside the store to clean up only if a customer advised the employees of a spill. Portions of appellee's operations manual pertaining to cleaning of the premises and training of the employees were produced and in the record. The testimony of Barker established variations between actual practice and the procedures set forth in the operations manual, it appearing that appellee's procedures were observed only in the breach.
On the other hand, appellant Lorraine Greenleaf had opined in deposition testimony that it did not appear that the substance had been there for a long time. She further speculated that a car had parked there after she went into the store and someone must have obtained a can of oil and improperly poured the oil into the car, which caused the spill. Her speculation as to what occurred, in and of itself, cannot be used to defeat her claim on summary judgment, where other competent evidence exists to support an inference of appellee's actual or constructive notice of the dangerous situation. All evidence and inferences must be construed in favor of the non-moving party. O'Connell v. Walt Disney World Co., 413 So.2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Similarly, evidence of the appellee's negligence alone will not allow entry of a summary judgment. Stetler v. Estate of Patterson, 595 So.2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
On the record presented to the trial court, appellee did not successfully carry its burden of conclusively demonstrating that there was no existing genuine issue of material fact as to the critical question of constructive or actual notice. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985); Ress v. X-Tra Super Food Centers, Inc., 616 So.2d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). While there was a dispute as to how long the dangerous condition existed, the fact that an employee may be able to see the location of a puddle from his or her workplace has been held to be some circumstantial evidence of constructive knowledge of the condition's existence. See Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Guenther, 395 So.2d 244, 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In addition, a lack of inspection for spills can circumstantially help establish constructive knowledge of the existence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton
...timely response to valid discovery requests, constitute discovery abuse and should not be condoned. 2. In Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp., 626 So.2d 263, 264 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), the court commented that where a party had objected to production on the grounds that the requested materia......
-
Markowitz v. Helen Homes of Kendall Corp.
...Country Store, Inc., 649 So.2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), and the Fourth District Court of Appeal's opinion in Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp., 626 So.2d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. FACTS The Markowitzes brought suit against Helen Homes of Kendal......
-
Gonzalez v. B & B Cash Grocery Stores, Inc.
...judgment should be cautiously granted in negligence actions. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985); Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp., 626 So.2d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Brooks. The moving party bears the burden to "show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.......
-
Strode v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
... ... 1982) (quoting ... Smith v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 227 F.2d 210, 213 (5th ... Cir. 1955)). Although all inferences ... circumstantial evidence .” Greenleaf v. Amerada ... Hess Corp. , 626 So.2d 263, 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) ... ...
-
Notices for Production
...Co. , 184 F.R.D. 181 (D.D.C., 1998); First Healthcare v. Hamilton , 740 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp. , 626 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Universal City Development Partners Ltd. v. Ride & Show Engineering, Inc. , 230 F.R.D. 688, 695 (M.D. Fla. 2005); Pan......
-
Notices for Production
...Co. , 184 F.R.D. 181 (D.D.C., 1998); First Healthcare v. Hamilton , 740 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp. , 626 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Universal City Development Partners Ltd. v. Ride & Show Engineering, Inc. , 230 F.R.D. 688, 695 (M.D. Fla. 2005); Pan......
-
Notices for production
...Co. , 184 F.R.D. 181 (D.D.C., 1998); First Healthcare v. Hamilton, 740 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp ., 626 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Universal City Development Partners Ltd. v. Ride & Show Engineering, Inc ., 230 F.R.D. 688, 695 (M.D. Fla. 2005); Pano......
-
$______ VERDICT - PREMISES LIABILITY - FALL DOWN - PLAINTIFF'S FALL ON SPILLED DRINK IN AISLE OF DEFENDANT'S STORE CAPTURED ON VIDEO - L4-5 DISC HERNIATION WITH BILATERAL RADICULOPATHY - RIGHT KNEE TRUNCATION OF MEDIAL MENISCUS - ARTHROSCOPIC PARTIAL LATERAL DISCECTOMY AND PARTIAL SYNOVECTOMY.
...by case law including: Lago v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 233 So. 3d 1248, 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) and Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp., 626 So. 2d 263, 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). As for the argument that the jury’s award for future medical damages was unsupported by the evidence and was influenc......