WAL-MART STORES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
GLENNA BOERTLEIN, 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.
Wal-Mart appeals a summary judgment finding it liable for injuries sustained by Glenna Boertlein when a box fell and struck her in the store. The appellate court affirms, holding that Wal-Mart failed to contest the facts and thus liability was established as a matter of law.
The court held that Ms. Boertlein met her burden on the motion for summary judgment on liability, and because Wal-Mart failed to come forward with evidence to suggest a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court correctly determined that liability exists as a matter of law.
[1] A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of irrefutably establishing that the nonmoving party cannot prevail.
[2] The nonmoving party is only required to demonstrate the existence of genuine issues of material fact after the moving party has met its burden on summary judgment.
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“The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing irrefutably that the nonmoving party cannot prevail. Furthermore, it is only after the moving party has met this heavy burden that the nonmoving party is called upon to show the existence of genuine issues of material fact.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment in Florida, placing the initial burden on the moving party.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Boertlein visited a Wal-Mart store in Largo, Florida while applying for a job. While walking through a sporting goods aisle, she observed two Wal-…
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 Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., appeals a summary final judgment finding it liable for the injuries sustained by Glenna Boertlein. We affirm.
Accompanied by her daughter, Ms. Boertlein went to the Largo, Florida Wal-Mart store to seek employment. After completing the job application procedure, Ms. Boertlein browsed the store while awaiting her daughter, who also was applying for a job. While walking in a sporting goods aisle, Ms. Boertlein observed two employees transferring merchandise from atop a display to a lower shelf. The boxes contained console units for minivans and weighed between 20 and 25 pounds. Both Wal-Mart employees were located in the same aisle as Ms. Boertlein; one stood on top of a stepladder, the other on the floor. As Ms. Boertlein walked past the employees, she heard someone say “oh.” Turning in the direction of the sound and the employees, she was struck on her right forehead and fell to the floor. As she stood up, she observed a box containing a van console on the ground near where she had fallen.
At the hearing on Ms. Boeretlein’s motion for summary judgment on liability, these were the sole facts presented to the court. Wal-Mart adduced no evidence in opposition to the facts put forth by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the trial court entered a summary final judgment on liability against Wal-Mart.
Although cases on this area of the law are legion, the disposition of this appeal does not require a legal treatise. The operative principle follows:
The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing irrefutably that the nonmoving party cannot prevail. Furthermore, it is only after the moving party has met this heavy burden that the nonmoving party is called upon to show the existence of genuine issues of material fact.
Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644, 645-6 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Here, Ms. Boertlein met the burden required of her by law. Wal-Mart failed to come forward with evidence to suggest a genuine issue of material fact. The facts being uncontested, the trial court correctly determined that liability exists as a matter of law.
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Slora v. SUN 'N FUN Fly-In, Inc., 173 So. 3d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…cuit court was exclusively directed to Sun 'n Fun’s relationship with the FAA. As the party moving for summary judgment, Sun 'n Fun had the burden to present facts and argument to support this claim. See generally Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Boertlein, 775 So. 2d 345, 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, Sun 'n Fun’s implied contract argument provides no basis to otherwise sustain the summary judgment here. III. The record in this case establishes that Sun 'n Fun’s relationship with the FAA was one of regulato…
Authorities Cited
- Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)