New case on “notice” in slip and fall suits provides help to governmental agencies

Miami- Dade County v. Wanda Jones, No. 3D16-226, 2017 WL 5162706, at* 1 (Fla. 3rd DCA Nov. 8 2017).
The Third District Court of Appeal recently wrote an opinion in Miami- Dade County v. Wanda Jones that provides an excellent illustration of the notice requirement in slip and fall cases as it relates to government entities. In order to be successful in a premises liability case, such as a slip and fall, the plaintiff is required to prove that the entity actually knew of the dangerous condition or should have known about it in the form of constructive notice. Plaintiff proves constructive notice through evidence that either (1) the substance had been on the floor for some time or (2) the apparent frequency of the condition.

The case is a good reminder of the burden plaintiff has to prove notice. Most importantly, the case delves into the issue of the admissibility of county ordinances for inspections to prove constructive notice. The Court found evidence of county ordinances relating to inspections are insufficient to prove a government entity should have known of a dangerous condition. The Court found that ordinances are inadmissible for this purpose. A more detailed summary of the decision is below.

Plaintiff was visiting a barbeque stand that was on private property and owned and operated by V-II sports club, Inc. when she slipped and fell on a sidewalk owned by the County. Jones argued that a faulty grease disposal from the barbeque stand caused grease to spill onto the sidewalk and that the County was negligent in maintaining the sidewalk and allowing the negligent condition to remain. The jury found the County to be fifty-percent liable and the County appealed. The County argued that there was no evidence the County had notice of the dangerous condition.

The Third District Court of Appeal agreed that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the county had notice of the grease spill. “All premises owners owe a duty to their invitees to exercise reasonable care and maintain premises in a reasonable condition.” Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315, 320 (2011). However, in order for a plaintiff to recover damages they must prove that the person responsible for the premises, in this case the County, had actual or constructive notice of the grease. Wilson-Greene v. City of Miami, 208 So. 3d 1271, 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Plaintiff can prove constructive knowledge by demonstrating (1) amount time the substance has been on the floor or (2) the fact that this condition occurred so frequently that the County should have known of its existence. Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc., 65 So. 3d 1087, 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

To prove the spilling occurred frequently, plaintiff admitted evidence of County Ordinances concerning the inspections and permits for food establishments, as evidence of constructive notice. The Court found that allowing the admission of these ordinances was error, “[t]he mere fact that an ordinance may cover the subject of inspecting food establishments does not imply that the County has notice of the grease spill.” The Court further stated that the ordinances would only be relevant to show, “that the County should have but failed to comply with its duty to inspect the barbeque stand.” The Court pointed out, however, that the county has sovereign immunity for enforcing or failing to enforce its laws. Trianon Park Condo Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912, 922 (Fla. 1985).

Additionally, instructing the jury to use the ordinances for the purpose of determining whether or not the County had constructive notice was improper. The Court found that Jones failed to introduce any evidence supporting that the County had constructive notice of the spill, and ordered the case be remanded and judgment entered in favor of the County.