JEFFREY P. PINGEL, APPELLANT,
v.
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF FLORIDA, 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.
The court reversed summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case, holding that evidence of the restaurant worker's post-incident admission of knowledge about the dangerous floor condition created a material factual issue regarding actual notice that must be resolved by a jury.
Evidence that a restaurant worker admitted awareness of a dangerous floor condition shortly after a slip-and-fall accident creates a material issue of fact regarding actual notice, precluding summary judgment.
[1] Evidence that a restaurant employee admitted knowledge of a dangerous floor condition shortly after a slip-and-fall accident may support an inference of actual notice at…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Where there are various reasonable inferences to be made and conclusions to be drawn from the evidence concerning an issue, the matter should be submitted to a jury for its resolution.”
Court explaining the standard for denying summary judgment when factual disputes exist.
Appellant fell on a wet floor in McDonald's restroom. After the fall, appellant's father notified a restaurant worker about the floor condition, and t…
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 Dangerous Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the summary judgment entered in this slip and fall case. The issue in question is whether the appellee had actual notice of the dangerous condition of the floor in its restroom where appellant fell, injuring himself. The appellant’s father testified that after his son’s fall and after he had finished his drink, he notified one of the restaurant workers about the floor’s condition. The time between the fall and notification was not substantial. The worker informed him that he was aware of the problem and was planning to have another worker clean it up shortly. This created a material issue of fact as to actual notice.
Although appellant’s father did not notify the worker immediately about the condition and the appellee therefore argued that appellant did not establish that the worker knew about the condition prior to the accident, we think that the evidence can support the inference that the appellee had actual notice of the dangerous condition at the time of the accident. Where there are various reasonable inferences to be made and conclusions to be drawn from the evidence concerning an issue, the matter should be submitted to a jury for its resolution. See Burroughs Corp. v. American Druggists’ Ins. Co., 450 So. 2d 540, 544 (Fla. 2d DCA1984).
Reversed.
WARNER and FARMER, JJ., and DONNER, AMY STEELE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Burroughs Corp. & Emp'rs Ins. of Wausau v. Am. Druggists' Ins. Co., 450 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)