According to Florida law, slip and fall accidents can be hard to prove due to the specific requirements for establishing negligence. However, negligence can be found in a variety of ways.
For example, under Florida statutory law, the victim must show that the business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and failed to take appropriate action to remedy it. This includes proving that the defendant failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition or failed to warn of a concealed peril. Additionally, constructive knowledge can be shown if the dangerous condition existed for a sufficient length of time that the business should have known about it through ordinary care, or if the condition occurred regularly and was therefore foreseeable. Finally, a victim may not need to identify the specific cause of a fall if there is sufficient evidence that the premises were not maintained in a safe condition. In one such instance, the court found that the plaintiff did not need to identify the specific item of debris that caused the fall, as there was sufficient evidence that the stairs were covered with debris for at least a week:
Tandem, as owner of the building, had a duty to Kinney, a business invitee, to use reasonable care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. *330 Yuniter v. A & A Edgewater of Florida, Inc., 707 So.2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). There was ample evidence in the record from which a jury could conclude that Tandem had breached its duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Several witnesses testified that the stairs were covered with debris on the day Kinney fell and that the stairs had been in that condition for at least a week. Although Kinney could not say which specific item of debris caused his fall, he testified that he slipped on “material.” Contrary to Tandem’s contention, Kinney does not need to identify the specific cause of his fall in order for Tandem to be liable. See Majeske v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, 117 So.2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). Accordingly, Tandem was not entitled to summary judgment.
See: Kinney v. RH Halt Associates, Inc., 826 So. 2d 328
Related:
What is constructive knowledge?
Does the court consider condition duration in a slip & fall?
Florida Premises Liability Law
_______________
Do you have questions or comments? Then please feel free to send Alan an email or call him now at (954) 458-8655.
If you found this information helpful, please share this article and bookmark it for your future reference.
