ROLF GRAYSON AND MYRA GRAYSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, 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.
Cruise ship passengers injured in a slip-and-fall on the pool deck appeal summary judgment in favor of Carnival Cruise Lines. The court reverses, holding that the size and nature of the puddle created a triable issue of fact regarding whether the cruise line created the hazard or had constructive notice of it.
Summary judgment was improper. The evidence, particularly the size of the puddle, presented sufficient jury questions as to both whether Carnival employees created the dangerous condition and whether the puddle existed long enough to charge Carnival with constructive notice of the hazard.
[1] A jury question exists as to whether a cruise line's employees created a hazardous condition on a pool deck, based on evidence of the size of a puddle and prior observati…
[2] A jury question exists as to whether a cruise line had constructive notice of a hazard on a pool deck, based on circumstantial evidence including the size of a puddle.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We agree with appellants that the evidence presented, especially facts as to the size of the puddle, was sufficient to present a jury question as to whether the puddle precipitating Mr. Grayson's fall was created by appellee's employees.”
Establishes that the puddle's substantial dimensions created a material factual dispute unsuitable for summary judgment regarding causation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRolf and Myra Grayson were passengers on Carnival's cruise ship Jubilee. Mr. Grayson descended stairs from the veranda deck to the pool deck and stepp…
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 Jury Question cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The cruise line passenger injured in this slip and fall action appeals the summary judgment entered in the cruise line’s favor. We reverse.
Appellants Rolf and Myra Grayson were fare-paying passengers on Carnival Cruise Lines’ “Jubilee.” The Graysons and their friends left the veranda deck and descended to the pool deck via a set of stairs that terminated between 20 and 35 feet from the pool. Some minutes earlier, appellants had observed employees working on the pool and had seen water splashing over the pool’s sides. Mr. Grayson claims he stepped from the stairs directly into a puddle one to two inches deep and approximately six feet by twelve feet in diameter, and immediately slipped and fell. The Carnival employee charged with investigating the accident did not remember where the accident occurred, or anything about his inspection following Mr. Grayson’s fall. The ship’s First Bosun, who did not remember anything about the accident, stated that his employees constantly inspected the area and that an employee was stationed on the pool deck at all times. Following discovery, the cruise line’s motion for summary judgment was granted.
We agree with appellants that the evidence presented, especially facts as to the size of the puddle, was sufficient to present a jury question as to whether the puddle precipitating Mr. Grayson’s fall was created by appellee’s employees. See Marlowe v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 284 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), (evidence of store employees’ creation of dangerous condition or of store’s knowledge of such condition was for jury), cert. denied, 291 So. 2d 205 (Fla.1974); see also Riles v. Robinson, 548 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Devoe v. Western Auto Supply Co., 537 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Further, we conclude the evidence presented, including the size of the puddle, was sufficient to present a jury question as to whether the puddle existed for ample time to charge the company with constructive notice of the hazard’s existence. See Teate v. Winn Dixie, 524 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA) (constructive knowledge of dangerous condition may be proved by circumstantial evidence), review denied, 534 So. 2d 402 (Fla.1988).
Accordingly, the summary judgment granted the cruise line is reversed and the case remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Altman v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 579 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…rsed the dirty area where she fell. We agree with the appellant that her testimony was sufficient evidence to present a fact question as to whether a dangerous condition was created by the store’s employees, Grayson v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 576 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and whether the dangerous condition on the floor existed for a sufficient length of time to charge the defendant with constructive notice. Proof that a dangerous condition existed long enough so that it should have been discovere…
-
Erickson v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 649 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…., 838 F. 2d 63, 65 (2d Cir.1988). We have said in another slip and fall action involving a puddle of water that constructive notice may be proved by circumstantial evidence such as the size of the puddle. See Greyson v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 576 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). We conclude that the source of the puddle (i.e. ceiling leak) as well as the size of the puddle were sufficient to create a jury question as to whether this hazardous condition existed for a sufficient period of time to charge a…
-
Espinoza v. Target Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2020)…ing a grant of summary judgment where a puddle of water “approximately three to five feet in diameter” had accumulated from “a water leak from the ceiling which had trickled down the wall and onto the floor”); Grayson v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 576 So. 2d 417, 417 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1991) (reversing a grant of summary judgment where there was evidence that “a puddle one to two inches deep and approximately six feet by twelve feet in diameter” had accumulated from water splashing over the sides of a…
Authorities Cited
- Teate v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 524 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Marlowe v. Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc., 284 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc. v. Marlowe, 291 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1974)
- Frankenberry v. State, 291 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1974)
- Riles v. Robinson, 548 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Anise Devoe v. W. Auto Supply Co. & Commercial Union Ins. Co., 537 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)