Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
802 So.2d 315, 2001 WL 1423221 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a plaintiff slips and falls on a transitory foreign substance in a business establishment, a rebuttable presumption of negligence arises, and the burden shifts to the business owner to prove by the greater weight of evidence that it exercised reasonable care in maintaining the premises.
Facts:
- This case consolidates two separate slip-and-fall incidents.
- In the first incident, Evelyn Owens, an off-duty employee, was grocery shopping at a Publix supermarket when she slipped and fell on a discolored, squashed piece of banana.
- A witness described the banana as dark and mushed, but had no knowledge of how long it had been on the floor.
- Publix employees were responsible for floor safety, but the store kept no inspection records and presented no evidence as to when the aisle was last inspected.
- In the second incident, Elvia Soriano was shopping at a B & B Cash Grocery Store when she slipped and fell on a brown banana peel.
- The store manager at B & B acknowledged that customers often ate food while shopping and sometimes dropped it.
- The manager also testified that employees were supposed to conduct hourly inspections but admitted that the store's inspection reports were routinely falsified and not completed in real-time.
Procedural Posture:
- In the first case, Evelyn Owens sued Publix Supermarkets, Inc. in a Florida trial court.
- The trial court granted a directed verdict for Publix after Owens presented her case.
- Owens, as appellant, appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, which, sitting en banc, affirmed the trial court's judgment for appellee Publix.
- In the second case, Elvia Soriano sued B & B Cash Grocery Stores, Inc. in a Florida trial court.
- The trial court granted a directed verdict for B & B at the close of Soriano's case.
- Soriano, as appellant, appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court's judgment for appellee B & B.
- The Supreme Court of Florida accepted review of both cases due to a conflict among the district courts and consolidated them for its decision.
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 the existence of a transitory foreign substance on the floor of a business, which causes a customer to fall, create a rebuttable presumption of negligence that shifts the burden to the premises owner to prove it exercised reasonable care?
Opinions:
Majority - Pariente, J.
Yes. The existence of a transitory foreign substance on the floor of a business that causes a customer to fall creates a rebuttable presumption that the premises owner did not maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. The traditional rule requiring plaintiffs to prove a business owner had actual or constructive notice of a hazard is unfair, as the owner is in a superior position to know about and control the premises and to present evidence of its maintenance procedures. This burden-shifting approach prevents business owners from benefiting from poor record-keeping and incentivizes them to implement and follow reasonable safety protocols. Modern self-service business models make such hazards foreseeable, and it is just to place the burden of producing evidence of reasonable care on the party with superior knowledge and control.
Concurring in result only - Wells, C.J.
Agrees with the burden-shifting result but would not discuss the 'mode of operation' theory. The old constructive notice rule has proven difficult to administer and fails to account for modern legal doctrines like comparative negligence and public expectations that stores provide a safe environment. The central issue should be the store's breach of its duty to maintain a reasonably safe condition, and proof of an unsafe condition like a foreign substance on the floor should be sufficient to establish a prima facie case, shifting the burden to the store owner to prove its lack of fault.
Concurring in result only - Harding, J.
Agrees that the directed verdicts were wrongly granted but argues the majority goes too far. The evidence of the deteriorated condition of the banana in both cases was sufficient to create a jury question on constructive notice under existing law. The court did not need to create a new, broad, burden-shifting rule to decide these cases and, in doing so, unnecessarily rewrote Florida's established slip-and-fall law.
Analysis:
This landmark decision significantly altered Florida premises liability law by shifting the burden of proof in slip-and-fall cases involving transitory substances. It eased the plaintiff's traditional burden of having to prove the business had constructive notice of the specific hazard, a requirement that was often difficult to meet. By establishing a rebuttable presumption of negligence, the court made it easier for plaintiffs to survive dispositive motions and get their cases to a jury. This ruling incentivizes business owners to maintain diligent, well-documented safety and cleaning procedures, as they now must affirmatively prove they exercised reasonable care to overcome the presumption of negligence.
