Understanding Florida Statute 768.0755: Key Considerations for Plaintiffs in Premises Liability Cases
Florida Statute 768.0755 governs liability in cases where a person slips and falls on a transitory foreign substance in a business establishment. This statute places significant requirements on plaintiffs to prove negligence, shifting the landscape of premises liability law and shaping how attorneys approach these cases.
The Statutory Framework
Florida Statute 768.0755 states:
"If a person slips and falls on a transitory foreign substance in a business establishment, the injured person must prove that the business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken action to remedy it."
The statute further specifies that constructive knowledge can be established through:
Evidence that the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that the business establishment should have known of it.
Evidence that the condition occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.
Implications for Plaintiffs
The burden of proof under 768.0755 creates distinct challenges and opportunities for plaintiffs pursuing premises liability claims:
Proving Actual or Constructive Knowledge: Plaintiffs must present clear and convincing evidence that the business knew or should have known about the hazardous condition. This often involves:
Surveillance footage showing the length of time the hazard was present.
Witness testimony regarding the condition and the business's inspection practices.
Documentation of prior incidents or complaints about similar hazards.
Importance of Timing: The duration of time the dangerous condition existed is critical. Plaintiffs should work to establish that the substance was present long enough for a reasonable business to discover and address it. For example:
Evidence of footprints or tracking through the substance can suggest it was present for a significant period.
Lack of inspection logs or procedures may indicate a failure to maintain reasonable safety protocols.
Highlighting Regularity and Foreseeability: If the condition occurred frequently, plaintiffs can argue that the business should have anticipated the hazard. Examples include:
Spills near self-service drink stations or produce sections.
Slippery floors in areas prone to rainwater accumulation.
Overcoming Defenses: Businesses may argue that they had reasonable cleaning and inspection procedures in place. Plaintiffs should scrutinize these claims by:
Investigating whether inspections were performed consistently and thoroughly.
Examining the adequacy of warning signs or other preventive measures.
Practical Steps for Plaintiffs
To succeed under 768.0755, plaintiffs and their attorneys should:
Gather Evidence Promptly: Timely collection of evidence such as photographs, video footage, and witness statements is crucial. Hazardous conditions can be quickly cleaned or altered, so immediate action is necessary.
Request Business Records: Inspection logs, maintenance schedules, and incident reports can provide critical insights into whether the business adhered to reasonable safety practices.
Leverage Expert Testimony: Safety experts can testify about industry standards for maintenance and inspection, helping to establish that the business fell short of its duty of care.
Challenges and Counterarguments
Florida Statute 768.0755 has faced criticism for placing a heavy burden on plaintiffs. Key challenges include:
Proving Constructive Knowledge: Plaintiffs often face difficulty demonstrating how long a condition existed without direct evidence.
Business Control of Evidence: Many critical pieces of evidence, such as surveillance footage and inspection records, are controlled by the defendant, requiring plaintiffs to aggressively pursue discovery.
Conclusion
Florida Statute 768.0755 requires plaintiffs in slip-and-fall cases to meet a stringent burden of proof. By focusing on establishing actual or constructive knowledge and leveraging comprehensive evidence, plaintiffs can effectively navigate these challenges. For attorneys, understanding the nuances of this statute is essential for crafting compelling arguments and securing just compensation for injured clients.