LON WALKER, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
BURDINES FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A nine-year-old boy was injured when he tripped over a shoe on the floor of a department store's shoe department. The trial court granted summary judgment for the store, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding the store's negligence.
The court held that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment and that a jury question existed regarding the store's negligence. The testimony of the Walkers, if believed, could support a finding that Burdines was negligent in maintaining the shoe department floor.
[1] A store may be liable for negligence if a dangerous condition exists on its premises due to the actions of its customers, even without direct evidence of how long the con…
[2] Evidence that a store's employees were instructed to inspect floors and remove foreign objects, coupled with testimony that such objects are frequently found during sales…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Burdines concedes it is dangerous for shoes to be lying on the floor in areas where customers shop.”
Establishes that the defendant acknowledged the hazardous condition, supporting a negligence claim.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBryan Walker, age nine, fell over a shoe lying on the floor in Burdines' busy shoe department during a major sale. His mother searched unsuccessfully …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Slip And Fall cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
Appellants seek review of a summary final judgment in a trip and fall case. We reverse.
Bryan Walker, a nine year old boy, was injured when he fell over a shoe lying on the floor in the shoe department of the Burdines Department Store in Altamonte Springs, Florida. He had accompanied his parents as they shopped at the store, which was quite busy due to a major sale.
According to the affidavits and deposition testimony of Bryan’s parents, people were trying on shoes displayed on several racks, without the aid of sales clerks, and there were a lot of shoes on the floor. Mrs. Walker shopped for shoes for several minutes, and then looked for a sales clerk without success for at least ten minutes. Eventually, Mrs. Walker gave up trying to find a sales clerk and decided to leave the shoe department to look at dresses. As she was exiting the shoe department, she saw shoes on the floor and stepped over them without tripping. Mrs. Walker walked by a mirrored column in the shoe department with Mr. Walker and Bryan following. Bryan tripped over a shoe and fell forward, hitting his head on the mirror. Neither the Walkers nor anyone else could say how long the specific shoe Bryan tripped over had been on the floor. When Bryan’s parents discovered that Bryan’s head was bloody, they still could not find a sales clerk in the shoe department. They went into the adjacent department where a sales clerk assisted Bryan and called the store nurse who administered First Aid. Three Burdines sales clerks were deposed but none had any knowledge of Bryan’s accident and did not know whether they were working at the time it occurred.
Burdines concedes it is dangerous for shoes to be lying on the floor in areas where customers shop. The record shows that Burdines’ employees were instructed to inspect the floors and to clear any shoes or other foreign objects. There was testimony from the sales clerks that they “constantly” inspect the floor and when there is a shoe sale they find “a lot” of shoes on the floor. The apparent basis for the summary judgment was the admitted lack of direct evidence that the particular shoe that Bryan tripped over had been lying on the floor long enough for Burdines to have been placed on constructive notice it was there. In light of evidence that many shoes were on the floor before the accident (“two or three” in the area where Bryan fell) and that appellants never saw a sales clerk in the shoe department, either before or after the accident, we conclude that the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Walker, if believed by the jury, could support a jury finding of negligence on Burdines’ part. See Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, 436 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1984); Whitten v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 430 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Williams v. Holland, 205 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kitsopoulos v. Mathers Bridge Rest., Inc., 627 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…m on notice of the recurring nature of the problem and created a jury question as to whether the landlords exercised reasonable care to guard against a foreseeable danger. 382 So. 2d at 875. In Walker v. Burdines Federated Department Stores, Inc., 568 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), this court found liability to be a jury question in a trip and fall case where the plaintiff could not show how long the cause of the trip and fall (a shoe lying on the floor) had been there but could show that the hazard was an…
Authorities Cited
- Anne E. Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Ruzicka v. State, 430 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Whitten v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 430 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Williams v. Holland, 205 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)