Condo Association May Be Liable For Slippery Elevator Floor
27 Jul 2007
In a recent Opinion a Florida Appellate Court has explained that a condominium association can be held liable for the injuries caused by a slippery substance on the floor of an elevator. The Court discusses the concept of "constructive notice" of the dangerous condition in the context of a slip and fall case.
In some respects, condominium associations are treated like any other land or business owners, especially in regard to dangerous conditions on floors. It has generally been the law in Florida and in all other states that the association must exercise reasonable care for the safety of those people who are legally upon its premises.
At times, the question of reasonableness depends on whether or not the association had notice of a dangerous condition in sufficient time to remove or otherwise correct it. Actual knowledge on the part of the association is not always provable. Therefore, the law has recognized situations in which constructive notice of the condition may be a first step in proving legal liability.
Excerpts from the Opinion follow:
24 Fla. L. Weekly D708a
JOYCE THOMPSON and ENOS THOMPSON, her husband, Appellants, v. POINCIANA PLACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 98-1235. Opinion filed March 17, 1999. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Edward H. Fine, Judge; L.T. Case No. CL 97-100 AI.
(SHAHOOD, J.) This is a premises liability/slip-and-fall case in which summary judgment was entered in favor of the defendant/appellee, Poinciana Place Condominium Association (``the condo association''). We reverse and remand for a trial on the merits.
The evidence before the trial judge at the hearing on the condo association's motion for summary judgment was that on a Sunday afternoon at approximately 4:30 p.m., Joyce Thompson (``Thompson''), who was a caretaker/house cleaner for one of the unit owners, slipped and fell on what appeared to be liquid soap on the floor of the elevator. She had used the same elevator three times previously that day, the last time at approximately 12:30 p.m., and had not noticed the soap on the floor on those occasions. Her employer and the condo association president confirmed that there was a greasy substance on the floor. There was also testimony that thirty minutes prior to Thompson's accident another resident had almost slipped on the same liquid in that elevator.
In a premises liability case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendant was negligent. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gaines, 542 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). To that end, the plaintiff must generally prove that the owner of the premises had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Schaap v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 579 So. 2d 831, 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The landowner's constructive notice of a dangerous condition may be inferred from either ``1) the amount of time a substance has been on the floor, or 2) the fact that the condition occurred with such frequency that the owner should have known of its existence.'' Id. at 834 (citation omitted).
The evidence in this case, together with all reasonable inferences, could support a finding that the condo association had constructive notice of the substance on the floor of the elevator. This, then, created a material question of fact as to whether the condo association had knowledge of the dangerous condition. See City of Miami v. Eichardt, 115 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959) (question of existence of dangerous condition is one for the jury).
REVERSED AND REMANDED. (POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.)
