Case Name: Todd BERENSON and Julie R. Berenson, his wife, Appellants, v. SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida Corporation, d/b/a Baptist Medical Center, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-12-08
Citations: 646 So. 2d 809
Docket Number: No. 93-77
Parties: Todd BERENSON and Julie R. Berenson, his wife, Appellants, v. SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida Corporation, d/b/a Baptist Medical Center, Appellee.
Judges: ZEHMER, C.J., and KAHN, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 646
Pages: 809–811

Head Matter:
Todd BERENSON and Julie R. Berenson, his wife, Appellants, v. SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida Corporation, d/b/a Baptist Medical Center, Appellee.
No. 93-77.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec. 8, 1994.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 19, 1995.
Jefferson W. Morrow of David & Morrow, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellants.
Charles Thomas Shad of Williams, Shad & Cleary, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On May 8, 1991, appellant Todd Berenson visited appellee's building, known as Baptist Medical Center, in order to obtain some information from a physician who maintained an office in the medical center. A security guard advised Berenson that the elevators were disabled because of an electricity outage. The guard then directed Berenson to a stairwell which, according to the guard, had emergency lighting. The physician's office was located on one of the higher floors of the medical center. After climbing some ten flights, Berenson found he had reached the end of his energy reserves and decided to exit the stairwell. After he began his journey back down, the emergency fighting system failed and the interior of the stairwell went completely black. In the darkness Ber-enson missed a step and, in his words, "went flying." According to interrogatory answers filed by appellee, the emergency fighting was restored within one minute.
Appellee moved for summary judgment, urging that Berenson's own negligence was as a matter of law the sole proximate cause of the accident. After hearing, the circuit judge entered a summary final judgment in favor of the medical center.
Under the summary judgment procedure utilized in this state, the nonmoving party need make no showing in support of his claim until the moving party has, by affidavit or otherwise, completely negated all allegations and inferences raised by the non-moving party. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40, 43 (Fla.1966); Johnson v. Deep South Crane Rentals, Inc., 634 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Pennco, Inc. v. American General Home Equity, Inc., 629 So.2d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The nonmoving party is not bound to come forward with any evidence or inferences until the proponent of the motion has met its exceedingly high burden. This burden requires the movant to demonstrate conclusively that the nonmoving party cannot prevail. Gomes v. Stevens, 548 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). In the present case, while it may be said that evidence of negligence on the part of the medical center is scant, such is not the controlling inquiry. The order under review is replete with references to Berenson's failure to establish the medical center's negligence by any evidence or inference. Berenson, however, had no obligation to come forward with any such evidence or inference. Rather, it was upon appellee, who controlled both the emergency fighting system and the security guard who sent Berenson up the stairwell, to conclusively refute the allegations of negligence. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985); Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977); Washington v. Fleet Mtg. Corp., 631 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The eases relied upon by the dissent are not contra. With one exception these cases are plenary appeals from jury verdicts, not involving summary judgment law as it has evolved in this state.
At trial, appellant will have the burden of establishing a prima facie case of negligence in order to be entitled to a jury ruling. Whether he can do that or not, we are unable to say. At this point, however, we conclude that the court below improvidently granted the motion for summary judgment.
REVERSED.
ZEHMER, C.J., and KAHN, J., concur.
BENTON, J., dissents with written opinion.