Kitty Kincaid V Walmart Inc And Jane Doe Store Manager

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Kitty Kincaid slipped on a ruptured orange gel pack in a Walmart meat department aisle, leading to injuries and a lawsuit against Walmart and the store manager. The court granted summary judgment to Walmart, finding no evidence of actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, and Kincaid's claims against the store manager were not pursued.

Issues

  • The court evaluated whether Walmart had constructive knowledge under Florida Statute §768.0755(1)(b) by proving the dangerous condition (gel pack rupture) occurred with regularity and was foreseeable, based on circumstantial evidence like prior incidents and safety policies.
  • The court determined whether Walmart or its employees had actual knowledge of the specific dangerous condition (a ruptured gel pack) at the time of the incident, as required under Florida Statute §768.0755.

Holdings

  • The court held that the plaintiff's assertion about Walmart's policy to place warning signs during gel pack use was speculative and did not establish constructive knowledge. The policy alone, without specific evidence of recurring incidents in the meat department, could not support a finding of foreseeability required under the statute.
  • The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that Walmart's use of gel packs and general safety policies demonstrated constructive knowledge under Florida Statute § 768.0755(1)(b). The evidence did not show that gel pack ruptures occurred with regularity or foreseeability in the meat department to impute constructive notice to Walmart.
  • The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Walmart because no reasonable finder of fact could determine that Walmart had actual or constructive knowledge of the ruptured gel pack that caused the plaintiff's slip. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding Walmart's knowledge of the dangerous condition.

Remedies

The court affirmed the summary judgment granted to Walmart, Inc., upholding the circuit court's decision that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding Walmart's liability for the plaintiff's slip-and-fall incident.

Legal Principles

Under Florida Statute §768.0755, a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case must prove the business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Constructive knowledge can be established by showing the condition existed long enough to be discovered through ordinary care or occurred with regularity and was foreseeable. The court affirmed summary judgment for Walmart, finding the plaintiff failed to meet this burden by providing insufficient evidence of either actual knowledge or regularity of the gel pack hazard.

Precedent Name

  • Patient Depot, LLC v. Acadia Enters., Inc.
  • Barbour v. Brinker Fla., Inc.
  • Fonseca v. Wal-Mart Stores, E., LP
  • Buyer's Choice Auto Sales, LLC v. Palm Beach Motors, LLC
  • Kozlowski v. Wal-Mart StoresEast, LP
  • Delice v. Burlington Stores, Inc.
  • Bennett v. Jetro Restaurant Depot, LLC
  • Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.
  • N. Lauderdale Supermarket, Inc. v. Puentes
  • Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
  • Avila Andrade v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP
  • Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., Inc.
  • Pembroke Lakes Mall Ltd. v. McGruder
  • In re Amends. To Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510
  • Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. King
  • Hamideh v. K-Mart Corp.
  • Levine v. Costco Wholesale Grp.
  • Speedway, LLC v. Cevallos
  • Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
  • Peer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
  • In re Amends. To Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.150
  • Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Bellaiche
  • Gromann v. Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
  • Salazar v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd.
  • Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Safonte
  • Whitlow v. Tallahassee Mem'l HealthCare, Inc.
  • In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510
  • Rodriguez v. B.J.'s Rests., Inc.
  • Dolgen Corp, LLC v. Doty
  • Khorran v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.

Cited Statute

Florida Statutes

Judge Name

  • May
  • Conner
  • Lott

Passage Text

  • The existence of a (vaguely identified) clean-up or warning policy alone does not substitute for evidence that a dangerous condition occurred with sufficient regularity to impute constructive knowledge.
  • Actual knowledge requires proof that an employee knew the specific dangerous condition existed, not merely that an employee performed an action that could create a hazard.
  • Because no reasonable finder of fact could have found that Walmart had either actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, we affirm.