Plaintiff Brenda Hernandez alleged she was injured when she slipped and fell on a transitory foreign substance (liquid) on the floor of the produce department, which she believed originated from a piece of fruit. The plaintiff’s incident occurred at a Wal-Mart (defendant) store in Broward County, Florida. Plaintiff alleged that Wal-Mart negligently failed to warn her of the liquid on the floor and also failed to maintain the store in a reasonably safe condition. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed the liquid was dirty, contained footprints and shopping cart marks; and thus, it was on the floor for a sufficient length of time to impute constructive notice upon Wal-Mart under Florida Statute § 768.0755.
Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence of actual or constructive notice of the liquid on the floor before the incident because (1) there was a no evidence that any employee knew the liquid was on the floor before the incident (or caused it to be there), (2) there was no evidence of substantially similar incidents occurring, and (3) Wal-Mart inspected the area 10 minutes before the incident and observed no liquid substance on the floor. The district court agreed, finding that summary judgment for Wal-Mart was proper. Plaintiff appealed the district court’s decision.
The appellate court found that the district court correctly held that Plaintiff failed to present any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would give rise to an inference that a foreign substance was on the floor long enough to charge Wal-Mart with constructive knowledge of its presence. The court reasoned that there was no evidence at all indicating how long the foreign substance was on the floor before Plaintiff fell. Importantly, regarding Plaintiff’s testimony that, immediately after her fall, she noticed some footprints or cart tracks in the area, the appellate court agreed with the district court that this testimony is not enough—by itself—to warrant finding that a foreign substance had been on the floor for an extended time. There being no evidence that a foreign substance was on the floor for a sufficient time to impute constructive knowledge to Wal-Mart, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment.
The appeal before the Eleventh Circuit was handled by Michael J. Dono and Suzette L. Russomanno.