Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-15-2024
Case Style:
Jean Murrahainen v. The TJX Companies, Inc., d/b/a Homegood
Case Number: 2020-CA-002218
Judge: Jessica J. Recksiedler
Court: Circuit Court, Seminole County, Florida
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Sharon C. Degnan
Description:
Sanford, Florida personal injury tip and fall lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a premises liability theory.
Jean Muurahainen, who tripped over a furniture trolley cart left in place by a store employee. Appellant fell to the floor, allegedly suffering an injury for which she received medical treatment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee, The TJX Companies, Inc., d/b/a HomeGoods after finding that the cart she tripped over was open and obvious as a matter of law, as it could be seen in the store's video and screenshots from the video. Appellant points to her testimony that she was unaware of the cart prior to tripping over it, claiming that it was low to the ground and that a wall of merchandise blocked her view as she left from the cashiers' area to enter the sales floor. One of Appellee's employees testified that the cart was not visible from the register where Appellant had been returning a prior purchase. Thus, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by overlooking that there was a triable genuine dispute of material fact. We agree and reverse for further proceedings.
In actions such as this, key considerations are the nature and extent of duties Appellee owed to Appellant and if any duties were breached. Fuentes v. Sandel, Inc., 189 So.3d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). A business, such as Appellee, owes two distinct duties to invitees like Appellant: (1) maintaining its premises in a reasonably safe condition, and (2) warning customers of perils or concealed dangers known to the business that are not apparent to customers by the exercise of reasonable care. Krol v. City of Orlando, 778 So.2d 490, 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). There is no duty to warn an invitee of an obvious danger. See City of Melbourne v. Dunn, 841 So.2d 504, 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ("An owner of land is not required to give an invitee warning of an obvious danger, and is entitled to assume an invitee will perceive something obvious."). While a customer's awareness of a dangerous condition may be fatal to a failure to warn claim, it "does not negate a defendant's potential liability for negligently permitting the dangerous condition to exist; it simply raises the issue of comparative negligence and precludes summary judgment." Trainor v. PNC Bank, N.A., 211 So.3d 366, 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citations omitted).
In our case, the store's video, obtained from two different cameras, captures the size and location of the cart. The flat surface of the cart is relatively low compared to a shopping cart. The record reveals that there is an elevated handle on one side of the cart and near that handle was a small table atop the cart. It is undisputed that a store employee had placed the cart in, or adjacent to, the aisle one encounters upon entering the store.
The video captured the initial phase of Appellant's encounter with the cart. She did not trip until she had passed by the part of the cart where the handle and the small table were located. Appellee argued, and the trial court found, that a portion of the video shows Appellant actually perceiving the cart prior to tripping. That video clip is arguably very consistent with Appellee's position and the trial court's finding, i.e., that the cart and any trip hazard it posed were open and obvious. However, Appellant clearly testified that she did not see the cart before tripping over it. A second perspective in another video clip is less supportive of Appellee's argument and the court's findings. The actual fall occurs just outside any camera's view.
Where video evidence utterly and completely discredits a testimonial account of the same events to the extent that no reasonable jury could believe the testimony, the trial court is justified in not relying upon that witness's testimony for summary judgment purposes. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 373, 380 (2007). However, despite having video available from multiple camera locations, nothing duplicated Appellant's visual perspective, nor does the video show exactly how the trip and fall occurred. It cannot be said that the video evidence here conclusively, clearly, and completely negated Appellant's sworn testimony that her view of the cart was obstructed until she turned and that she was
unaware of its presence until she tripped over it. Morton v. Kirkwood, 707 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 2013).
Muurahainen v. The TJX Cos., 5D2022-2554 (Fla. App. Nov 15, 2024)
Outcome: Reversed and remanded.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: