Background
Two restaurant patrons, George Massaua and Stephanie L. Allen, contracted tuberculosis after dining at Casa Ludovico, an upscale restaurant in Palm Harbor, Florida, in November and December 2016, respectively. They sued the restaurant’s manager Carmine Cervelli, the restaurant owner Umberto’s of Palm Harbor, Inc., and server Marcus Adrian Visoiu, alleging that Visoiu was infected with active TB while working at the restaurant and that the defendants knew or should have known he was contagious but allowed him to have contact with customers.
The evidence showed that Visoiu had visited an urgent care clinic in September 2016 with flu-like symptoms and was prescribed antibiotics. He returned in October for another course of antibiotics and again in March 2017, when he was diagnosed with TB. Coworker Kim Ford testified that Visoiu had a visible, heavy cough for weeks and appeared noticeably unhealthy throughout his employment. Both patrons were later diagnosed with TB in 2018 and contacted by the Florida Department of Health, which indicated Casa Ludovico as the likely source of infection.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, finding that Massaua and Allen had failed to establish that the defendants knew or reasonably should have known Visoiu was infected with tuberculosis specifically, and that proximate causation had not been established.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s summary judgment as to Cervelli and Umberto’s, finding that the trial court had improperly narrowed the scope of the defendants’ duty and impermissibly weighed evidence at summary judgment. The court held that the relevant question is not whether a restaurant owner knew an employee had tuberculosis specifically, but whether the owner knew or reasonably should have known the employee had any contagious disease. The court reasoned that foreseeability of harm from a contagious illness—not knowledge of the specific disease—defines the scope of a business’s duty to its invitees.
The court found genuine issues of material fact that should survive summary judgment. Evidence showed that Visoiu suffered from a noticeable respiratory illness with conspicuous symptoms (a heavy cough) for nearly three months while working at Casa Ludovico. A jury could reasonably conclude that Cervelli and Umberto’s, exercising ordinary care, should have discovered the extent of Visoiu’s illness and prevented him from working until cleared by a medical professional. An epidemiologist’s affidavit, supported by Visoiu’s medical timeline and the defendants’ medical records review, created a factual dispute regarding whether Massaua and Allen contracted TB from their exposure to Visoiu at the restaurant.
The court also found that the trial court had improperly weighed conflicting testimony, credibility, and expert opinions at the summary judgment stage—a task reserved for the jury. The trial court had selectively credited some of coworker Ford’s testimony while rejecting other portions, mischaracterized testimony from the owner of another restaurant where Visoiu worked, and discounted an expert epidemiologist’s affidavit based on medical records that were not even in the trial record.
Key Takeaways
- A restaurant owner’s duty to prevent harm from a contagious disease is triggered by knowledge or constructive knowledge of any contagious illness, not just the specific disease ultimately contracted by patrons.
- Constructive knowledge can be inferred when a dangerous condition—here, a visibly sick employee—exists for a sufficient length of time that a reasonable business owner should have noticed and remedied it.
- Summary judgment is improper when a trial court impermissibly weighs evidence, makes credibility determinations, or relies on facts not in the record; these are jury functions.
- Expert opinions supported by medical records and deposition testimony can create genuine disputes of material fact regarding proximate causation in disease transmission cases, precluding summary judgment.
Why It Matters
This decision expands potential liability for restaurants and other businesses in Florida premises liability cases involving infectious diseases. By holding that a business need not know the specific disease—only that an employee has a contagious illness—the court lowers the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs and broadens the scope of duty owed to business invitees. The ruling reinforces Florida’s regulatory framework, referenced by the court, prohibiting employees with communicable diseases from working in food service establishments in capacities where disease transmission is foreseeable.
The decision also reinforces strict procedural limits on summary judgment. The court emphasized that at summary judgment, the moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of genuine factual disputes, and the nonmoving party is entitled to have evidence viewed in the light most favorable to it. Trial courts may not resolve factual conflicts or make credibility judgments at this stage—those determinations belong to the jury. This procedural holding may have implications beyond disease transmission cases, affecting how Florida courts handle summary judgment motions in premises liability and negligence cases generally.