Background
Deana Christie slipped and fell in a puddle of water in the water and soda aisle at a Publix Super Market in Volusia County, Florida. Christie described the puddle as approximately 4 feet by 4 feet. A Publix employee, Cohen Clatterbuck, was nearby restocking water jugs from a float (a cart used to transport products). After the fall, Christie’s husband observed water leaking from the float and water drops scattered down the aisle. Clatterbuck testified that before the fall, he saw no water on the floor and did not notice the wet condition until another customer pointed out “little spots of water.”
Publix moved for summary judgment, contending that Christie could not establish that Publix had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. The trial court granted the motion. Christie appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment on the constructive knowledge claim, finding a genuine dispute of material fact for a jury. Under Florida Statutes § 768.0755, a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case must prove the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Constructive knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing either that the condition existed long enough the business should have known of it, or that it occurred with such regularity as to be foreseeable.
Viewing the evidence favorably to Christie, the court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to defeat summary judgment. The large puddle size (approximately 4 by 4 feet), combined with evidence of a leaking float and water drops down the aisle, could support a reasonable inference that the dangerous condition had existed long enough for Publix to have constructive knowledge. Because employee Clatterbuck was in the immediate vicinity of the fall, a jury could reasonably infer he should have seen the dangerous condition. The court affirmed summary judgment on Christie’s actual knowledge claim and remanded for trial on the constructive knowledge claim.
Key Takeaways
- The size of a puddle combined with evidence of its source constitutes circumstantial evidence sufficient to create a jury question on constructive notice in slip-and-fall cases
- Proximity of business employees to a hazardous condition strengthens the inference that the business should have known of its existence
- Direct evidence of duration is rare; circumstantial evidence of size and source can defeat summary judgment
- The “mere presence” of a substance on the floor is insufficient to establish constructive notice without additional circumstantial evidence
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that in Florida slip-and-fall cases, when a plaintiff presents evidence of a large puddle with a known source (such as a leaking product) combined with employee proximity, summary judgment may be inappropriate. The ruling reinforces that juries, not judges, should determine constructive knowledge where circumstantial evidence supports competing inferences about how long a dangerous condition existed.
For businesses and their insurers, the decision underscores the importance of regular facility inspections and strategic employee positioning to monitor and promptly address spills. The case also illustrates that what employees observe and testify to regarding when they first noticed a hazard is critical to the constructive knowledge analysis.