Charles Kondla, of our Miami office, obtained a Final Summary Judgment in a premises liability action involving a national supermarket chain. The motion was based on Plaintiff’s inability to establish actual or constructive notice under Florida’s Transitory Foreign Substance Statute.

The record reflected that Plaintiff did not take photographs or videos of the condition of the floor and did not report the incident to a store manager. As a result, the only evidence regarding the condition of the floor was Plaintiff’s deposition testimony.

During Plaintiff’s deposition, Charlie obtained several key concessions. Although Plaintiff testified that the liquid was “dirty and musty” and contained footprints and cart marks, Plaintiff acknowledged that the liquid could have been dirty and musty when it reached the floor because she believed it originated from a leaking cooler. Plaintiff also acknowledged that the footprints and cart marks could have been her own, as she did not observe the condition of the floor until after her fall.

At the summary judgment hearing, Charlie highlighted these deposition concessions and presented supporting Florida case law. Plaintiff argued that the condition of the liquid supported an inference that it had been on the floor long enough to establish constructive notice. The Court concluded that, in light of Plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the applicable case law, Plaintiff could not establish notice without relying on impermissible stacking of inferences and granted Final Summary Judgment in favor of the supermarket chain.

Additionally, a Proposal for Settlement had been served at the outset of the litigation. As a result of the entry of Final Summary Judgment, the case concluded with potential entitlement to recover taxable costs and pursue fees pursuant to the Proposal for Settlement, as permitted under applicable law.