About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

18 U. Fla. L. Rev. 440 (1965-1966)
Supermarket Liability: Problems in Proving the Slip-and-Fall Case in Florida

handle is hein.journals/uflr18 and id is 456 raw text is: UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LAW REVIEW SUPERMARKET LIABILITY: PROBLEMS IN PROVING THE SLIP-AND-FALL CASE IN FLORIDA The past decade has brought a noticeable increase in tort liti- gation involving Florida supermarkets. Some of this increase may be attributed to the growing concept of products liability,' but by far the greatest number of cases have arisen out of the slip-and-fall accident. These cases usually arise when an invitee shopping for his groceries slips on a foreign substance, such as a lettuce leaf or a green bean. The resulting fall produces the injuries for which action is brought. A plaintiff injured in a slip-and-fall accident has several avenues available for establishing the supermarket's liability. A cursory view of these avenues would lead one to believe that recovery for injuries sustained is virtually assured. Further, absent contributory negligence, the injuries received would seem to merit compensation. Closer study, however, reveals that there are almost insurmountable burdens of proof blocking each avenue. These burdens and the practical prob- lems in meeting them are the subject of this note. The emphasis will be on Florida law, but the decisions of other jurisdictions will be compared on many of the issues. THE AVENUES OF PROOF Generally, the duty of a supermarket owner is the same as that of any store or property owner, that is, a business-invitee may expect that the premises will be maintained in a reasonably safe condition.2 Although this involves a positive duty, the supermarket owner is clearly not the insurer of his shoppers' safety.3 He may be held liable only for breach of his duty to exercise reasonable care.4 With the rule of reasonable care as a foundation, the courts have held that the duty of a supermarket owner not only involves care that dangerous conditions are not created by him or his employees5 and care that dangerous conditions once discovered are quickly remedied6 but also, that reasonable inspections be made to discover dangerous conditions that may exist through no fault of the owner or his 1. See Note, Products Liability: Doctrinal Problems and the Restatement's Answer, 17 U. FLA. L. REv. 421, 430 (1964). 2. Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., Inc., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So. 2d 366 (1942). 3. See Frederich's Mkt., Inc. v. Knox, 66 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1953). 4. See Matson v. Tip Top Grocery, Inc., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So. 2d 366 (1942). 5. See Pogue v. Great At. & Pac. Tea Co., 242 F.2d 575 (5th Cir. 1957); Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell, 131 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1961). 6. See Berube v. Economy Grocery Stores Corp., 315 Mass. 89, 51 N.E.2d 777 (1943). [V/ol. XVIII

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most