Background
Charles Ausburn, an auto-glass employee, slipped and fell in a Wesley Chapel Toyota service bay on a rainy day in 2020. He alleged that the dealership negligently maintained the bay and failed to warn of its wet, slippery floor.
Ausburn could not identify what caused the fall. He did not know whether he slipped on oil, water, or another substance; did not see puddling where he fell; and could not say how long any substance had been present. Although employees testified that rainwater could be present on rainy days, they also described slip-resistant, graded floors designed to drain water and testified that they did not recall prior falls in the shop.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed summary judgment for the dealership. Under section 768.0755(1), Florida Statutes, a plaintiff claiming a fall on a transitory foreign substance must prove the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Ausburn did not argue actual knowledge.
He also failed to create a fact issue on constructive knowledge. Because he could not identify the substance or show its condition, location, or duration, there was no evidence that it had existed long enough for the dealership to discover it. The court rejected a theory based on rain, wet vehicles, and alleged inadequate inspection practices as impermissible stacking of speculative inferences. Nor did evidence that rainwater could appear on rainy days establish that a dangerous condition occurred with regularity.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff must offer evidence identifying or describing the hazard sufficiently to support an inference of constructive notice.
- Wet conditions on a rainy day alone do not prove a business had notice of a dangerous transitory substance.
- Constructive-notice theories cannot rest on stacked speculation about what caused the fall, how long it was present, and whether employees failed to address it.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that section 768.0755 requires evidence of notice of a dangerous condition, not merely evidence that a floor may have been wet. For businesses, routine practices addressing spills and drainage may reinforce the absence of a triable notice issue where the plaintiff cannot identify the substance or establish its duration.