Miller v. Big C Trading, Inc., 93-692.
| Decision Date | 14 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-692.,93-692. |
| Citation | 641 So.2d 911 |
| Parties | Shirley MILLER, Appellant, v. BIG C TRADING, INC., etc., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dennison & Dennison, Miami Lakes, Stephen T. Maher, Miami, for appellant.
Hardeman & Suarez, and Richard Suarez, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and GODERICH, JJ.
Compare, e.g., Zayre Corp. v. Bryant, 528 So.2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Teate v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 524 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied, 534 So.2d 402 (Fla. 1988). The plaintiff relies, however, on evidence that two store employees were nearby when she fell which, she argues, gives rise to an inference that they should have known and were therefore on constructive notice of the grape's presence before the accident. We do not agree with this argument simply because, since there is no indication as to how long the grape was there, there can be nothing but speculation to support the claim that the employees could, let alone should, have seen it in time to remove it. Thus, in considering the conceptually identical issue of the effect of a failure timely to inspect the premises, the law is that:
the fact there was no inspection for a given length of time in itself provides no proof that the defect was actually there for a sufficient period to place a landowner on reasonable notice of its existence. Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 528 So.2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); McCanick v. W.J.A. Realty Limited Partnership, 516 So.2d 1129, 1130 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. King, 592 So.2d 705, 707 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), review denied, 602 So.2d 942 (Fla. 1992). In reaching this conclusion, we disagree with the statement in Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp., 626 So.2d 263, 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), referring to Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Guenther, 395 So.2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), that:
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Mazzie, WINN-DIXIE
...evidence of actual or constructive knowledge by the premises owner of the dangerous condition. Id; see also Miller v. Big C Trading, Inc., 641 So.2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 650 So.2d 990 (Fla.1994); Silver Springs Moose Lodge No. 1199 v. Orman, 631 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Sc......
-
Gonzalez v. B & B Cash Grocery Stores, Inc.
...long the dangerous condition had existed. See, e.g., Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell, 131 So.2d 730 (Fla.1961); Miller v. Big C Trading, Inc., 641 So.2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 650 So.2d 990 (Fla.1994); Schaap v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 579 So.2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA Defendant c......
-
Linares v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.
...was on the floor that needed to be removed. Nor does the Court find persuasive Defendant's reliance on Miller v. Big C Trading, Inc., 641 So. 2d 911 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994).10 There, the court held that the presence of two store employees in proximity to where the plaintiff fell did not ......
-
Espinoza v. Target Corp.
...to interrogatories and depositions do notestablish how long the substance had been on the floor"); Miller v. Big C Trading, Inc., 641 So. 2d 911, 912 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (affirming the grant of summary judgment when there was "no indication as to how long the grape was there"). A.......