Latest Blogs

Prior to its update in 2011, Florida’s slip and fall law only required harmed individuals to demonstrate the existence of a dangerous condition on a property and the property owner’s failure to warn or address it.

Today, the law calls for injured victims who slip and fall in a business establishment to show that the business had “constructive” or “actual” knowledge of the potentially harmful condition and failed to fix it.

The case of McCarthy v. Broward College and Sunshine Cleaning Systems, Inc. discusses the applicability of the slip and fall law to college campuses. Ultimately, the court found that the provisions of the law that refer to a “business establishment” apply to universities.

What Happened in McCarthy?
Linda McCarthy filed a complaint against Broward College, claiming that she slipped and fell due to an unidentified liquid substance located in a campus elevator. McCarthy’s main theory was that the liquid was rainwater and she presented evidence to show it had rained approximately four miles from where the incident occurred.

However, McCarthy also noted that it was not raining when she got to the college or at the time she entered the elevator (which was about an hour and a half after her arrival on campus). Further, evidence was provided that demonstrated the surrounding walkway areas were dry -- which contradicted her claim that the rainwater was tracked in from outdoors.

In an attempt to overcome the contradictory information, McCarthy’s attorneys also argued the slip and fall statute was not applicable to the college because it was not a “business” as required by law.

At the lower court level, the college argued that McCarthy could not demonstrate that the college had actual or constructive knowledge (as required by law) of the hazardous condition, particularly since she could not pinpoint what the substance was or how long it had been in the elevator. Accordingly, the college sought to obtain a summary judgment on that basis and the lower court granted the school’s motion.

As noted above, on appeal, the court found that the school was a place where services were rendered for a fee, which, in essence, means it can be deemed a business establishment for purposes of the law. The court stated McCarthy had not supplied any facts to show how the school was responsible for her accident. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision granting summary judgment.

Understanding Actual and Constructive Knowledge
The requirement for a business to have actual or constructive knowledge of a potentially dangerous condition has made it more difficult for injured parties to prove their cases. “Actual knowledge” for purposes of the slip and fall law means that the establishment was either told of the problem or they noticed it on their own.

“Constructive knowledge,” simply stated, means the business should have known of the dangerous condition’s existence. An injured party can demonstrate constructive knowledge by proving that the condition was either there for a certain length of time (which suggests that the business, through the use of ordinary care, would have discovered it) or the condition happened with such regularity that it could be considered foreseeable.

This heightened standard has made slip and fall cases harder to prove. That being the case, harmed individuals are encouraged to work with Ft. Myers personal injury attorneys like Randall Spivey who will work hard to ensure you obtain the best outcome possible. Contact the Spivey Law Firm, Personal Injury Attorneys, P.A. today.