Facts
- Deborah S. Thoma ate breakfast at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Tallahassee, Florida.
- After finishing, she took several steps from her table into a common aisle near the passage between the kitchen and dining area and fell when her left foot slipped.
- After getting up, Thoma observed an approximately 1-by-2-foot area containing drops of clear liquid and asserted she slipped on the liquid.
- Thoma had been in the restaurant about thirty minutes before the fall and did not see anyone spill liquid in the area.
- Leonard McNeal, seated 12–15 feet away, described the location as an area where waitresses frequently traveled to and from the kitchen and stated he was sure he saw waitresses carrying beverage pitchers there; he did not see customers carrying drinks in that area and did not see a spill.
- The restaurant manager inspected the area after the fall, stated he saw no foreign substance on the floor, and testified the restaurant was not buffet-style and customers were not expected to walk around with food or drinks.
- The trial court entered final summary judgment for Cracker Barrel in Thoma’s negligence action; Thoma appealed.
Issues
- Whether, on this record, a jury could reasonably infer that Cracker Barrel created the liquid hazard or had actual or constructive notice of it, making summary judgment improper.
Decision
- The First District Court of Appeal reversed the final summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that, viewing the evidence and reasonable competing inferences in the light most favorable to Thoma, a jury could find Cracker Barrel created the dangerous condition or had constructive notice.
- The existence of alternative plausible inferences (including those favoring Cracker Barrel) did not justify summary judgment; resolving which inference is more likely was for the jury.
Legal Principles
- In a slip-and-fall negligence claim, the plaintiff must show the premises owner created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive knowledge of it.
- Constructive notice may be proved by circumstantial evidence permitting a reasonable inference that the condition existed long enough that, with reasonable care, the owner should have discovered and corrected it.
- On summary judgment, courts must view evidence and draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party; where reasonable minds could differ, the dispute is for the jury.
Conclusion
The appellate court held that Thoma’s and the eyewitness’s testimony about the clear liquid and the high-employee-traffic aisle near the kitchen permitted reasonable inferences of creation or constructive notice, so liability could not be resolved as a matter of law and required jury determination on remand.