People get injured at commercial or residential properties in Florida for various reasons. The first thing that is important to understand is that MORE THAN PROVING THAT YOU FELL is required. You must prove THE NEGLIGENCE of the owner or occupies of the property in order to win your case, generally. There are a lot of moving parts in the analysis of a fall case and generally it is a good idea to get a licensed Florida lawyer to assist you in determining whether you actually have an injury case. If the owner or occupier of the business created the hazard (like if an employee of the business actually spilled the water on the ground that you fell on), the negligence part of the case is generally straight forward. If the owner or occupier of the property knew about the hazard and did not remedy it, then again this would be suggestive of negligence on the part of the premises owner or occupier. This second basis of premises liability is rarely used in practice in my experience. The most commonly used way to prove negligence is through the third prong of the premises liability law: that the owner or occupier of the property had constructive knowledge of the hazard (they should have known). In the commercial setting dealing with a “transitory foreign substance” (like spilled water, etc.), there is a Florida law on topic and that is Florida Statute 786.0755, which is put below. Under that law, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove constructive knowledge and that can be by evidence showing that (a) The dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the business establishment should have known of the condition; or (b) The condition occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable. See Florida Statute 768.0755 (1)(a) and (1)(b). The amount of time that a hazard has to be there for it to be considered negligence is something that a jury would have to decide. Interestingly, in today’s technological age, many of these falls are on video and where the water or other hazard came from is shown on the video and further the amount of time the hazard has been there again is captured on video. Thus, historically, the court system had to use evidence, and much of the evidence was circumstantial, in terms of figuring out how long the substance was on the ground but today we often know exactly how long as it is captured on video.
768.0755 Premises liability for transitory foreign substances in a business establishment.—
(1) 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. Constructive knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing that:
(a) The dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the business establishment should have known of the condition; or
(b) The condition occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.
(2) This section does not affect any common-law duty of care owed by a person or entity in possession or control of a business premises.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2010-8.
