The Court recently granted summary judgment in a premises liability slip-and-fall case, reinforcing key principles under Florida law. Plaintiff attempted to establish notice of a foreign transitory substance by arguing that store employees were moving carts in and near the subject slip and fall area, using their phones in the area, and further claimed that the store failed to conduct adequate safety checks. The Court rejected these theories, finding them speculative. In its order, the Court observed that it was “just as plausible and reasonable to infer that [Plaintiff] fell after simply losing her balance,” and emphasized that “speculation does not create a genuine issue of material fact.” The Court also cautioned that “inferences that are speculative in their own right cannot be stacked to establish constructive notice.” Plaintiff also sought a continuance on the grounds that discovery was incomplete. The Court denied that request, noting the response was unverified and failed to comply with the requirement that a party demonstrate, by affidavit or declaration, specific reasons why essential facts could not yet be presented. Relying on Grand Harbor Community Assoc., Inc. v. GH Vero Beach Development, LLC, 395 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), the Court confirmed that general assertions about “pending discovery” are insufficient to avoid summary judgment. This decision underscores two important takeaways: speculative inferences cannot establish constructive notice, and procedural rules matter. Unsupported arguments, neither on the merits nor on procedural grounds, will not carry the day. Attorneys Wendy Gaskins, Paxton Bagan, and Lara Weems-Rezapour all played important roles in this matter.
