MARILYN REYNOLDS

v.

BELK, INC., AND VILLAGE LAKE PROMENADE, LLC D/B/A LAKE SQUARE MALL

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2024-1749 LT Case No. 2022-CA-002086-A _____________________________

MARILYN REYNOLDS,

Appellant,

v.

BELK, INC.,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County. Danny R. Mosley, Judge.

Sebastian C. Mejia, of Mejia Law Group, PLLC, Orlando, for Appellant.

Clarence Harold Houston, III, of Carr Allison, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

December 19, 2025

EDWARDS, J.

Appellant, Marilyn Reynolds, appeals the summary final judgment entered in favor of Appellee, Belk, Inc., and the related order denying her motion for rehearing. Appellant claims that while a customer in the Belk store, she tripped over a certain unsecured, wide-based metal stanchion and sustained injuries. As summary judgment evidence, Appellee submitted several screen shots, which were still images excerpted from the store’s video.¹ The screen shots were the only summary judgment evidence cited in, attached to, and relied upon in Appellee’s motion.2 The screen shots depict Appellant’s location relative to the store clerk and checkout desk, the store clerk assisting Appellant, and other people and things in the vicinity of where Appellant fell. The screen shots show webbing or rope stretched between the upright poles which we will have to assume are connected to the stanchions. None of the screen shots show the actual unsecured, wide-based, metal stanchion that caused her to trip, nor do they show Appellant actually looking at any of the stanchions that were located behind her.3 Thus, there is no support for the trial court’s determination and bases for granting summary judgment, that as a matter of law, i.e., first, any danger presented was open and obvious and second, that the stanchion was not inherently dangerous. There is an old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words; however, here, the screen shot pictures merit only three words: Reversed and Remanded.

In Muurahainen v. TJX Cos., 397 So. 3d 205, 206–07 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), we reversed summary judgment in favor of a defendant store owner where plaintiff tripped over a furniture trolley cart placed by one of the defendant’s employees in or adjacent to an aisle.⁴ In the current case, as in Muurahainen, each plaintiff had given sworn testimony that she had not perceived the thing over which she tripped prior to falling over it. Id. at 206. The summary judgment evidence in Muurahainen included video images from two different cameras showing the cart over which plaintiff tripped, unlike the absence of any images or testimonial descriptions of the stanchion in the current case. However, the video in Muurahainen did not duplicate plaintiff’s visual perspective of the cart nor did it show exactly how the trip and fall occurred. Id. at 207–08. We concluded in Muurahainen, as we now conclude here, that Appellee’s summary judgment evidence could not be said to have “conclusively, clearly, and completely negated Appellant’s sworn testimony,” id. at 207, that she was unaware of the item over which she tripped until the fall occurred. Triable issues of fact remain.

Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment granted in favor of Appellee and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.5

REVERSED and REMANDED.

JAY, C.J., and HARRIS JJ., concur.

4 _____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

_ r ome

AI LEESBURG-1, M2 1/2022

Ty b mia | Aw} : CT ae 1246223040 } | \ . . 4 a ~ - 2 —_ s . * = " ’ co) | — * > . a -TAgs -~ i e a 2 WS = =, + & 7 a a : — =; = -— aa A Se ra Tm _ - y . an “s f 4 tS, ~ y C4 < >. — - -_ rf ‘a 8

SK.

wT” t - + - . 4, . <a ~ “a , ‘4 - BY + - = a \ “ - } ~ x oe an <n Ge 4 Vie, Se . ae -~ * | : ‘\ yy = * 7 > | a

EXHIBIT

ie F PAGE # 201

EXHIBIT

PAGE# 201