Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Bellaiche
245 So.3d 873 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a slip-and-fall negligence action, a plaintiff cannot establish a business's actual knowledge of a dangerous condition by stacking inferences upon purely circumstantial evidence; there must be sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude the business caused or knew of the condition without such speculation.
Facts:
- On August 11, 2010, Jessie Bellaiche, a 70-year-old woman, was shopping at a Publix store with her husband, John Basilone.
- While at the checkout, Basilone went back into the store to get a few more items.
- Bellaiche left her cart and walked up aisle 17 to find her husband because he was taking some time.
- While walking in the aisle, Bellaiche slipped and fell on water, which she had not seen before the fall.
- After she fell, Bellaiche saw a Publix employee standing with a mop in his hand.
- No witness testified that the mop was wet or that the employee had been using it in the aisle.
- Publix's store manager testified that the store used dry rayon mops for spot cleaning, not pre-soaked mops that could create puddles.
- Video surveillance showed that the only custodian on duty at the time of the incident had been using a broom and dustpan, not a mop, before Bellaiche's fall.
Procedural Posture:
- Jessie Bellaiche sued Publix Super Markets, Inc. in the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida (trial court) for negligence.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Bellaiche, awarding her over $1.5 million in damages.
- Publix filed post-trial motions for a directed verdict, a new trial, and remittitur.
- The trial court denied all of Publix's motions and entered a final judgment for Bellaiche.
- Publix, as the appellant, appealed the final judgment to the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida (intermediate appellate court), with Bellaiche as the appellee.
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 evidence showing that a store employee was standing with a mop near where a customer slipped and fell on water, without more, constitute sufficient proof to establish that the business had actual knowledge of or caused the dangerous condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Fernandez, J.
No. The mere presence of an employee with a mop after a fall, without any other supporting evidence, is insufficient to prove the business had actual knowledge of or created the dangerous condition. Under Florida statute § 768.0755, a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case must prove the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Bellaiche proceeded only on a theory of actual knowledge, arguing the employee with the mop caused the spill. However, this conclusion requires the jury to impermissibly 'stack inferences': first, inferring the employee was using the mop; second, inferring that the mopping created the puddle; and third, inferring this was the puddle on which Bellaiche slipped. The law forbids a verdict based on stacked inferences drawn from purely circumstantial evidence. Given the lack of any direct evidence and countervailing testimony about Publix's use of dry mops and video showing the on-duty janitor was not mopping, no reasonable jury could find for Bellaiche without engaging in such speculation.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high evidentiary standard for plaintiffs in Florida slip-and-fall cases, particularly under the 'actual knowledge' prong of section 768.0755. The court's decision clarifies that circumstantial evidence, such as the mere presence of an employee with cleaning equipment, is not enough to survive a motion for a directed verdict without some additional fact linking the employee or the equipment to the creation of the hazard. It serves as a strong precedent against allowing juries to speculate on causation by stacking multiple inferences. This ruling protects business owners from liability based on conjecture and requires plaintiffs to produce more direct or substantial circumstantial evidence to prove their claims.
Unlock the full brief for Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Bellaiche