Court Opinion

ID: 9411911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 15:04:26.947368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:18.321533
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13310    Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 07/28/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13310
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       ELIMANIEL GONZALEZ,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-02077-KKM-JSS
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13310     Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 07/28/2023    Page: 2 of 6

       2                     Opinion of the Court                22-13310

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Elimaniel Gonzalez claims that Wal-Mart’s negligence
       caused his slip and fall. We vacate the district court’s grant of
       summary judgment for Wal-Mart because a reasonable jury could
       find that the company had notice of the substance that caused the
       accident.
                                        I.
               Everyone agrees that Elimaniel Gonzalez stepped on some
       sort of substance near a Wal-Mart store register, slipped, and fell.
       He did not see the substance before he slipped, but afterward said
       he saw “a white creamy liquid (similar to the color of the floor)
       about the size of a dinner plate.” Footage from Wal-Mart’s
       cameras captured the fall and the surrounding area both before and
       after the accident.
              Gonzalez sued Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart moved for
       summary judgment, arguing that it had no notice of the dangerous
       condition (the substance) that caused the fall. Wal-Mart disclaimed
       actual notice of the substance because its employees were not
       aware of the substance and did not cause it to be on the floor. Nor
       did it have constructive notice, Wal-Mart asserted, because there
       “is simply no evidence of the length of time the substance was on
       the floor.” Wal-Mart asserts that the substance was on the floor, at
       most, for twenty-one seconds. That is because shortly before the
USCA11 Case: 22-13310     Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 07/28/2023    Page: 3 of 6

       22-13310               Opinion of the Court                        3

       fall, the footage shows a young child holding an object near the fall
       area.
              Gonzalez disagreed. He says the liquid dripped from an
       overloaded cart right next to the fall area. The footage shows
       employees loading the stationary cart with merchandise for over
       an hour and a half. About eight minutes before the fall, an
       employee moved the cart. For the next eight minutes, a white-ish
       smudge appears on the footage (and occasionally disappears) in the
       exact spot that Gonzalez later slipped. He claims that this footage
       supports his theory that the substance leaked from the cart, and
       that—at minimum—a dispute of material fact exists about the
       source of the substance.
               The district court sided with Wal-Mart. Although it
       acknowledged Gonzalez’s claim that the substance leaked from the
       cart, it decided that he had identified “no evidence” from which a
       reasonable jury could infer that Wal-Mart had notice of the
       substance. In evaluating Gonzalez’s shopping cart theory of actual
       notice, the court downplayed the footage showing “a white shape,”
       suggesting that it could have been “a trick of the lighting or a flaw
       in the film.” In ruling against constructive notice, the court
       similarly reasoned that the evidence was insufficient to show when
       the substance appeared, meaning a jury could not evaluate
       whether Wal-Mart should have noticed the hazard. Gonzalez now
       appeals.
USCA11 Case: 22-13310      Document: 20-1       Date Filed: 07/28/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13310

                                         II.
              This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo.
       Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1314
       (11th Cir. 2011). Along the way, we view the evidence and make
       all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
       nonmoving party, Gonzalez. Id.
                                         III.
              At this stage in the case, Gonzalez’s claim rises and falls with
       the answer to one question: could a reasonable jury conclude that
       the substance leaked from the shopping cart? If so, then Wal-Mart
       could have had actual notice, because it caused the dangerous
       condition. See Barbour v. Brinker Fla., Inc., 801 So. 2d 953, 957 (Fla.
       Dist. Ct. App. 2001). And Wal-Mart could have had constructive
       notice, because then the dangerous condition could have “existed
       for such a length of time” that Wal-Mart “should have known of
       the condition.” Fla. Stat. § 768.0755.
              After carefully viewing the video footage, we conclude that
       a reasonable jury could decide that the substance leaked from the
       shopping cart. To start, the footage shows that the cart was parked
       close to the spot of the slip. For the first hour and thirty-six minutes
       of the footage, the cart sat adjacent to the floor area where
       Gonzalez later slipped.
             After the cart was removed, about eight minutes elapsed
       before the slip. During this time, a white-ish spot or smudge
       appears on the footage. The smudge appears in the exact same spot
       that Gonzalez later stepped on when he slipped. That spot on the
USCA11 Case: 22-13310         Document: 20-1         Date Filed: 07/28/2023         Page: 5 of 6

       22-13310                   Opinion of the Court                                5

       floor is also the exact same place where the employee later cleaned
       up the spill, soaking a paper towel. At times, the smudge
       disappears, coinciding most frequently with people passing nearby
       or their shadows covering the area. But no other portion of the
       footage behaves quite like this smudge. And it is telling that no
       smudge appeared before the cart was moved or after the slip and
       cleanup—only during the crucial eight minutes before the fall.
               A reasonable jury could conclude, based on its location and
       persistence, that the smudge on the footage depicted the substance
       itself or otherwise evidenced its presence. From that fact, it could
       also conclude that the shopping cart was the source of the
       substance, meaning that Wal-Mart had notice, actual or
       constructive. 1
              That said, a reasonable jury could also discount this video
       evidence. It is true, as the district court stressed, that several people
       seemed to walk near, over, or even through the substance during
       the eight-minute period between the cart’s removal and the slip.
       And after he had slipped on the substance (presumably altering it
       in the process) Gonzalez did not report seeing any dirt, cart marks,
       or footprints visible in the liquid as he looked at it while walking
       away. All the same, the existence of evidence to counter
       Gonzalez’s theory of notice does not change the fact that he has

       1 To establish constructive notice, the jury would need to decide not only that

       the substance leaked from the cart, but also that it was “foreseeable” or on the
       floor “for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care” Wal-Mart
       “should have known of the condition.” Fla. Stat. § 768.0755(1)(a)–(b).
USCA11 Case: 22-13310    Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 07/28/2023   Page: 6 of 6

       6                    Opinion of the Court               22-13310

       presented sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could decide
       the question in his favor.
                                      IV.
              We REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary
       judgment for Wal-Mart and REMAND for proceedings consistent
       with this opinion.