Cain v. Brown, 88-2996
| Decision Date | 26 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2996,88-2996 |
| Citation | 569 So.2d 771 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2408, 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2915 William J. CAIN, Jr., d/b/a Wingate Shell, Appellant, v. Oscar BROWN and Sharon Brown, his wife, Appellees. |
Claudia B. Greenberg of DeMahy & Greenberg, P.A. (withdrawn as counsel after filing brief), and Kenneth R. Drake of Touby, Smith, DeMahy & Drake, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
Edward A. Perse and Arnold R. Ginsberg of Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Miami, and Law Offices of Jerold B. Hart, North Miami Beach, for appellees.
This appeal is taken from a jury verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a slip and fall case. Appellant was the owner/operator of a service station which included full-service lanes. Appellee pulled his automobile into such a full-service lane, and exited the car to purchase some soda and pay for the gasoline. While returning to his car he slipped on a greasy substance on the ground in the service island area between the pumps and his car and fell, injuring himself. At issue is whether appellant Appellant has cited as supplemental authority on the issue of constructive notice the fifth district's opinion in Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Marcotte, 553 So.2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Judge Cowart, writing for the fifth district, has provided a scholarly analysis as to how constructive notice comes into play in a premises liability case. We agree that the burden on such a landowner that, with the exercise of reasonable care, he should have known of the existence of such a dangerous condition so that he could take protective measures for the benefit of his business invitees, is not equated to strict liability. There, as here, it is not suggested that the landowner or his employees were responsible for the slippery substance being on the ground. The question is rather one of foreseeability. In a supermarket, it is clearly foreseeable that customers will open packages, drop produce and grocery items on the floor, such that a duty is imposed on the premises owner to inspect the grounds on a reasonable interval, so that such dangerous substances on the floor may be detected and cleaned up prior to a business invitee being injured thereby. As the Marcotte court correctly pointed out, it is plaintiff's burden to put evidence before the jury from which the jury might find a breach of such duty. Given the scant facts set forth in the Marcotte opinion, we must be satisfied with Judge Cowart's observation, concerning the plaintiff's burden to establish constructive notice, "neither did the customer produce evidence as to how or when the substance got on the floor or the length of time it was there before the accident." Id. at 214.
was on constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, and whether appellees' case was based on the impermissible pyramiding of inference upon inference. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in favor of appellees.
That is not the situation in the case now before us. Here the appellee elicited testimony that Wingate Shell had in place procedures for inspecting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp.
...certain inspection and maintenance requirements on the operator different from the operator of a supermarket. See e.g., Cain v. Brown, 569 So.2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Simpson v. Simpson, 232 So.2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA On appeal, the appellants additionally contend that summary judgment was ......
-
Fetterman v. Friedrich
...safe for invitees, and is required to use reasonable care to learn of any dangerous conditions on its premises.1 Cain v. Brown, 569 So.2d 771, 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). As we noted in Cain, the duty imposed upon a business to discover otherwise unknown dangers was best articulated by Judge C......
-
Mayo v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 96-0738
...established by a party to govern the conduct of its employees are relevant evidence of the standard of care. In Cain v. Brown, 569 So.2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), a slip and fall action was brought against a service station owner/operator by a patron who slipped on a greasy substance on the ......
-
Fetterman & Assoc. P.A. v. Friedrich
...safe for invitees, and is required to use reasonable care to learn of any dangerous conditions on its premises.1 Cain v. Brown, 569 So. 2d 771, 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). As we noted in Cain, the duty imposed upon a business to discover otherwise unknown dangers wasbest articulated by Judge C......