JOYCE THOMPSON AND ENOS THOMPSON, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
POINCIANA PLACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
In this premises liability case, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for a condominium association in a slip-and-fall incident, holding that the evidence presented material questions of fact regarding the association's constructive notice of a dangerous condition (liquid soap in an elevator) that should have been tried to a jury.
Summary judgment was improper because the evidence, together with all reasonable inferences, could support a finding that the condo association had constructive notice of the substance on the elevator floor, creating a material question of fact for a jury regarding the association's knowledge of the dangerous condition.
[1] A plaintiff in a premises liability case must prove the defendant's negligence, which generally requires showing actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
[2] Constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the premises may be inferred from the length of time the substance was present or the frequency of its occurrence.
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“To that end, the plaintiff must generally prove that the owner of the premises had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.”
Establishes the legal standard for premises liability requiring notice of the dangerous condition
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoyce Thompson, a caretaker/house cleaner, slipped and fell on liquid soap in a condominium elevator at approximately 4:30 p.m. on a Sunday. Thompson …
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
SHAHOOD, J.
This is a premises liability/slip-and-fall case in which summary judgment was entered in favor of the defendant/appellee, Poinciana Place Condominium Association (“the condo association”). We reverse and remand for a trial on the merits.
The evidence before the trial judge at the hearing on the condo association’s motion for summary judgment was that on a Sunday afternoon at approximately 4:30 p.m., Joyce Thompson (“Thompson”), who was a caretaker/house cleaner for one of the unit owners, slipped and fell on what appeared to be liquid soap on the floor of the elevator. She had used the same elevator three times previously that day, the last time at approximately 12:30 p.m., and had not noticed the soap on the floor on those occasions. Her employer and the condo association president confirmed that there was a greasy substance on the floor. There was also testimony that thirty minutes prior to Thompson’s accident another resident had almost slipped on the same liquid in that elevator. In a premises liability case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendant was negligent. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gaines, 542 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). To that end, the plaintiff must generally prove that the owner of the premises had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Schaap v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 579 So. 2d 831, 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The landowner’s constructive notice of a dangerous condition may be inferred from either “1) the amount of time a substance has been on the floor, or 2) the fact that the condition occurred with such frequency that the owner should have known of its existence.” Id. at 834 (citation omitted).
The evidence in this case, together with all reasonable inferences, could support a finding that the condo association had constructive notice of the substance on the floor of the elevator. This, then, created a material question of fact as to whether the condo association had knowledge of the dangerous condition. See City of Miami v. Eichardt, 115 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)(question of existence of dangerous condition is one for the jury).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lester's Diner II, Inc. v. Gilliam, 788 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…e burden of proving that the defendant was negligent, and to that end, the plaintiff must generally prove that the owner of the premises had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. See Thompson v. Poinciana Place Condominium Ass’n, 729 So. 2d 457, 458 (Fla. 4th DCA), review granted, 743 So. 2d 14 (Fla.1999). Constructive knowledge may be inferred from [*286] the amount of time a substance has been on the floor. See Id. In Soriano, this court held that an inference of the existence of an ess…
-
Julissa DeLEON v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 98 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ndition may be inferred from either 1) the amount of time a substance has been on the floor, or 2) the fact that the condition occurred with such frequency that the owner should have known of its existence.” Thompson v. Poinciana Place Condo. Ass’n, 729 So. 2d 457, 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citation and quotation marks omitted). There was no evidence presented as to how long the shopping basket had been on the floor. However, one of Dollar Tree’s cashiers testified in deposition that one of her job responsibil…
-
Schiffbauer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2023)…may be inferred from either ‘1) the amount of time [the dangerous condition existed], or 2) the fact that the condition occurred with such frequency that the owner should have known of its existence.’” Thompson v. Poinciana Place Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 729 So. 2d 457, 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Schaap v. Publix Supermkts., Inc., 579 So. 2d 831, 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)); see also Khorran, 251 So. 3d at 965. Here, there is no indication that Wal-Mart had actual knowledge of the car battery missing its prote…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schaap v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 579 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gaines, 542 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- City OF Miami v. Eichardt, 115 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)