Thoma v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.
649 So. 2d 277 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a premises liability case, a plaintiff may use circumstantial evidence to establish a business owner's constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition, creating a triable issue of fact if the evidence supports a reasonable inference that the condition existed for a sufficient length of time that the owner should have discovered it through the exercise of reasonable care.
Facts:
- On September 26, 1990, Deborah Thoma was a customer at a Cracker Barrel restaurant.
- After eating breakfast for approximately 30 minutes, Thoma stood up from her table and took three or four steps.
- Thoma's left foot slid out from under her, causing her to fall and injure her back.
- The fall occurred in a common aisle near the entrance to the kitchen, an area frequently traversed by waitresses.
- After her fall, Thoma observed drops of a clear liquid covering a one-foot by two-foot area on the floor where she slipped.
- During the 30 minutes she was seated near the area, Thoma did not see anyone drop or spill anything on the floor.
- Another customer, Leonard McNeal, was seated 12 to 15 feet away for 15 minutes prior to the fall and also did not see anyone spill anything.
- McNeal observed waitresses carrying beverage pitchers in that area, and the restaurant manager stated he would not expect customers to be carrying drinks there.
Procedural Posture:
- Deborah S. Thoma and her husband, Michael Thoma, filed a negligence lawsuit against Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. in a Florida trial court.
- Cracker Barrel filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the Thomas had not presented evidence that it had notice of the dangerous condition.
- The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of Cracker Barrel.
- The Thomas, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decision to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, with Cracker Barrel 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 a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case present sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the premises owner's constructive notice of a dangerous condition when the plaintiff did not see the spill occur, but the spill was located in a high-traffic area for employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Kahn, J.
Yes. A plaintiff presents sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a jury question on the issue of constructive notice when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, allows for a reasonable inference that the dangerous condition existed for a sufficient length of time. In a slip-and-fall case, notice of a dangerous condition can be established by circumstantial evidence. Here, neither Thoma nor another witness saw anyone spill anything in the 15 to 30 minutes before the accident. The fall occurred in a high-traffic area for employees entering and exiting the kitchen, and only employees were seen carrying beverages in that location. A jury could reasonably infer from this evidence that the substance had been on the floor long enough that Cracker Barrel employees, in the exercise of due diligence, should have discovered it. The existence of other possible inferences does not warrant summary judgment for the defendant; it is the jury's role to weigh the competing inferences based on a preponderance of the evidence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that plaintiffs in slip-and-fall cases can defeat a summary judgment motion without direct evidence of how long a hazard was present. It clarifies that a combination of circumstantial factors, such as the location of the hazard in a high-traffic employee area and a lack of evidence of a recent spill, is sufficient to create an inference of constructive notice. This precedent makes it more difficult for business owners to dispose of negligence cases early in litigation simply because no one can testify to the exact duration of the dangerous condition. The ruling emphasizes the jury's role in weighing competing inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.
