Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hospitals of Florida, Inc.
211 So. 3d 275, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1109 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida Statute § 768.0755, a person injured in a slip-and-fall on a transitory foreign substance in a business establishment must prove the establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Constructive knowledge requires circumstantial evidence that the condition existed for such a length of time that the business should have known of it, or that the condition occurred with regularity.
Facts:
- Carmen Encarnación arrived at Palmetto General Hospital to assist her elderly mother who was in the emergency room.
- After waiting for approximately five hours, Encarnación left her mother's room to find a nurse.
- In the hallway, Encarnación saw a man she believed to be an EMS paramedic cleaning a stretcher with a spray bottle.
- While attempting to walk around the man and the stretcher, Encarnación slipped and fell on a liquid substance on the floor.
- Encarnación testified that she 'guessed' the substance she slipped on was spray liquid from the man cleaning the stretcher.
- She later described the substance as 'oily', 'dirty', and 'dark,' and stated it smelled like a cleaning product.
- Encarnación did not know how long the substance had been on the floor before her fall.
Procedural Posture:
- Carmen Encarnación sued Lifemark Hospitals of Florida, Inc. and later joined Hospital Housekeeping Systems, Inc. in a Florida trial court.
- Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence they had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition.
- The trial court granted summary final judgment in favor of the Hospital and Hospital Housekeeping Systems.
- Encarnación, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the intermediate court of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case create a genuine issue of material fact regarding a business's constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition by testifying the substance was 'dirty' and 'dark,' without presenting evidence of how long the substance was on the floor?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepherd, Senior Judge.
No. A plaintiff's testimony that a substance was 'dirty' or 'dark' is insufficient, without a 'plus' factor, to create a jury issue on constructive notice. To defeat a motion for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case involving a transitory substance, Florida Statute § 768.0755 requires the plaintiff to prove the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Here, there was no evidence of actual knowledge. For constructive knowledge, the plaintiff must show the substance was on the floor for a sufficient length of time for the defendant to have discovered it. Encarnación presented no evidence as to how long the substance was on the floor; in fact, her testimony suggests it was deposited by a non-hospital employee at the same moment she fell. Testimony that a substance was 'dirty' or 'dark' is not enough on its own, as it requires an assumption that the substance was not already dirty when it landed on the floor. A plaintiff must present an additional fact—a 'plus'—from which a jury could reasonably infer the substance was on the floor long enough to become discolored.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant evidentiary burden placed on plaintiffs by Florida Statute § 768.0755 in premises liability cases. The court clarifies that mere speculation about the source of a substance or its appearance (e.g., 'dirty') is not sufficient to survive summary judgment without concrete evidence of duration. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to proceed to trial unless they can provide specific facts, beyond their own observations at the time of the fall, that establish the defendant's constructive notice of the hazardous condition. The introduction of the 'plus' factor requirement for 'dirty' substance claims sets a higher bar for circumstantial evidence.
