Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reggie
1998 WL 390405, 714 So. 2d 601 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business owner can be held liable for a slip and fall injury if they had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition, which can be established by circumstantial evidence showing either that the condition existed for a sufficient duration or occurred with regularity making it foreseeable.
Facts:
- Wal-Mart operated a store that included a McDonald's Restaurant, the entrance to which was located inside the Wal-Mart store.
- Wal-Mart maintained two garbage containers immediately outside the entrance to the McDonald's, adjacent to the area where Donna Reggie later slipped and fell.
- Garbage and trash from McDonald's customers, including soft drink cups with soda and ice, frequently overflowed these containers.
- Ms. Blanchard, McDonald's assistant manager, testified that the garbage containers overflowed about twice a week and liquid seeped onto Wal-Mart's floor as often as once a month.
- Ms. Blanchard regularly notified Wal-Mart personnel about these conditions, and on one occasion offered to place 'wet floor' signs, but a Wal-Mart manager declined, stating his people would handle it.
- Wal-Mart employees typically responded to Ms. Blanchard's notifications of wet conditions or overflowing containers between 30 minutes and an hour and a half later.
- About an hour before Donna Reggie was injured, Ms. Blanchard noticed the containers were overflowing with trash, including cups containing ice cubes, and called Wal-Mart to send a cleaning crew.
- Donna Reggie exited McDonald's, took a few steps, slipped on some liquid, and fell, subsequently noticing small spots of a wet substance on the floor where she fell.
Procedural Posture:
- Donna Reggie and Joseph A. Reggie (plaintiffs) sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Sebastian North, Inc. (d/b/a McDonald's) in a trial court for injuries sustained in a slip and fall.
- A jury rendered a verdict in favor of Mrs. Reggie and her husband.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury verdict for the Reggies.
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (defendant) filed a motion for directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (appellant) appealed the judgment and the denial of its motion for directed verdict to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
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 business owner have actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition on its premises, sufficient to defeat a motion for directed verdict in a slip and fall case, when evidence shows the condition (liquid from overflowing garbage) occurred regularly, employees were notified of similar conditions, and notice of the specific overflowing condition was given an hour before the injury without a proven response?
Opinions:
Majority - William C. Owen, Jr.
Yes, a business owner can have actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition on its premises, sufficient to defeat a motion for directed verdict, when evidence demonstrates the condition occurred regularly, employees were notified of similar conditions, and notice of the specific condition was given an hour before the injury without a proven response. The court affirmed the judgment entered on a jury verdict for Mrs. Reggie, finding that the jury could reasonably infer Wal-Mart had constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The court reasoned that a plaintiff's proof of actual or constructive knowledge often relies on circumstantial evidence. Constructive notice can be established by showing the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that the defendant should have known of it, or by showing that the condition occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable, as outlined in cases like Brooks v. Phillip Watts Enterprises, Inc. The evidence presented, including frequent overflowing garbage and liquid seepage, Ms. Blanchard's regular notifications to Wal-Mart, and her specific call about the overflowing containers an hour before the fall (without evidence of a response), permitted the jury to find Wal-Mart had actual or constructive knowledge. The court distinguished a similar case, Publix Super Markets v. Schmidt, noting that in this case, Mrs. Reggie knew she slipped on liquid and sought to prove Wal-Mart's knowledge, not that Wal-Mart created the condition.
Analysis:
This case reinforces and clarifies the standards for establishing actual and constructive notice in premises liability slip-and-fall actions, particularly highlighting the 'foreseeable regularity' doctrine. It serves as a significant precedent for plaintiffs seeking to demonstrate a business owner's knowledge of recurring dangerous conditions, even without immediate proof of how long a specific hazard existed. The ruling makes it more challenging for businesses to obtain directed verdicts by emphasizing that a pattern of unaddressed hazards, combined with direct notification, can be sufficient for a jury to infer culpability, thereby shifting more responsibility onto premises owners to proactively address known, recurring dangers.
