FREEDA LYNCH AND JOHN LYNCH, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
TARGET STORES, A DIVISION OF DAYTON HUDSON 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 a slip and fall case, the court reversed summary judgment for the store owner because the plaintiff's evidence that a foreign substance was on the floor for at least fifteen minutes created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the store's constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.
Summary judgment for a store owner in a slip and fall case must be reversed when evidence supports a reasonable inference that a foreign substance was on the floor for a sufficient period to trigger the store's duty to discover and remedy it.
[1] In a slip and fall case, evidence that a foreign substance was visible on the floor for at least fifteen minutes during which no store employees or customers entered the…
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 intelligenceFreeda Lynch slipped and fell on a creamy substance in Target's cosmetics area. Lynch and her daughter had been shopping in the nearby cosmetics area …
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 Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this slip and fall case the court entered summary judgment for the store owner.1 We reverse.
Appellant Freeda Lynch slipped and fell on a creamy substance on the floor of appellee’s store. She alleged that such substance constituted a dangerous condition of which the defendant had constructive knowledge. Plaintiffs affidavit stated that for a period of fifteen minutes she and her daughter had been shopping in the cosmetics area, within view of the nearby area where she subsequently fell. During that fifteen minutes no other customers, and no Target employees, entered or exited the area where the fall occurred. The facts, viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, support a reasonable inference that the foreign substance had been on the floor for a minimum of fifteen minutes. Whether that is sufficient time in which appellee should have become aware of this condition is for the trier of fact. See Montgomery v. Fla. Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., 281 So. 2d 302 (Fla.1973); Little v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 234 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL and TAYLOR, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur. . The summary judgment does not state the basis upon which it was entered but the motion and the briefs on this appeal focus upon evidence as to the length of time the substance had been on the floor prior to plaintiff’s slip and fall.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vazquez v. Target Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Montgomery v. Fla. Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., 281 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1973)
- Little v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 234 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)