Source: https://www.floridainjuryattorneyblawg.com/category/premises-liability/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:43:35+00:00

Document:
Premises Liability Category Archives — Page 2 of 5 — Florida Injury Attorney Blawg Published by Florida Injury Lawyer — Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.
When it comes to determining ownership of property, there is a popular expression that possession is 9/10ths of the law. Most of the time, it’s not that simple.
the police having to be called because two patrons were about to fight.
In Florida premises liability cases, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of presenting competent and substantial evidence that the incident was reasonably foreseeable and the defendant failed to take reasonable measures to prevent it. The plaintiff in Bellevue tried to meet this burden by introducing evidence of sixty prior events, including the above listed. The court ruled that only those incidents “involving damage to persons or property” and “starting [on], ending [on], or involving the premises” would be admitted. As a result, only twelve of the sixty incidents were admitted.
Once upon a time in Florida a person injured by a transitory substance on the floor of a chain store like a Publix, Walmart, or Whole Foods could rely on similar incidents in the chain’s other stores to prove what caused their own accident. The theory was that the similar events tended to show a failure by the entity to remedy a known problem. According to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals, this evidence is no longer relevant. Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Santos, So.3d , 38 FLW D1656 (Fla. 3rd DCA 7-31-2013).
All premises owners owe a duty to their invitees to exercise reasonable care to maintain their premises in a safe condition. See, e.g., Everett v. Restaurant & Catering Corp., 738 So.2d 1015, 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Despite this general proposition, when a person slips and falls on a transitory foreign substance, the rule has developed that the injured person must prove that the premises owner had actual knowledge or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition “in that the condition existed for such a length of time that in the exercise of ordinary care, the premises owner should have known of it and taken action to remedy it.” Colon v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc., 721 So.2d 769, 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Constructive knowledge may be established by circumstantial evidence showing that: (1) “the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that in the exercise of ordinary care, the premises owner should have known of the condition;” or (2) “the condition occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.” Brooks v. Phillip Watts Enter., Inc., 560 So.2d 339, 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In the latter category, evidence of recurring or ongoing problems that could have resulted from operational negligence or negligent maintenance becomes relevant to the issue of foreseeability of a dangerous condition. See generally Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reggie, 714 So.2d 601, 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
The court was reviewing a case where the Plaintiff (Owens) slipped on a banana peel inside a Publix supermarket. Arguing that Owens failed to present any evidence that it had actual or constructive knowledge that the banana piece was on the floor, Publix moved for a directed verdict. Finding that the evidence of the condition of the banana was insufficient to establish a basis for Publix’s liability, the trial court directed a verdict and entered final judgment for Publix.
From its analysis of the case before it and a handful of other Florida cases, the court concluded that “an injured person’s ability to establish constructive notice is often dependent on the fortuitous circumstance of the observed condition of the substance.” Finding this unacceptable, the court changed the law in premises liability cases involving transitory foreign substances by shifting the burden to the premises owner or operator to establish by the greater weight of evidence that it exercised reasonable care in the maintenance of the premises, “eliminating the specific requirement that the customer establish that the store had constructive knowledge” of the existence of the transitory foreign substance. See Kenz v. Miami-Dade County, at 13, n. 1 (Fla. App. 2013). In enacting section 768.0710, the Florida Legislature returned to the claimant the burden of proving that the premises owner or operator negligently failed to exercise reasonable care, but codified that part of Owens that a claimant was not required to prove actual or constructive notice of the transitory foreign substance.
Most business establishments today maintain some form of video surveillance to capture events, including accidents and assaults, that happen in and around their property.
The key to resolving premises liability claims fairly to all concerned — the injured person and the property owner — is by determining fully what happened.
Frequently, the information has been captured by the videotape camera(s).
Since the videotape is always in the hands of the target defendant, shouldn’t it always be made available to the plaintiff? The answer is, It depends.
In Osmulski v. Oldsmar Fine Wine, Inc., So.3d , 37 FLW D1578 (Fla. 2nd DCA 6-20-2012), the appellate court ruled that the defendant was not obligated to preserve the videotape of the accident without a request from the plaintiff. It ruled this way even though the defendant knew immediately of the accident and it was reasonably foreseeable the plaintiff would bring a claim to be compensated for her serious wrist injury (which required two surgeries and needed at least one more). By the time the request was made, after pre-suit negotiations had failed, the videotape had been deleted.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.