Torts
— Premises liability — Slip and fall — Trial court erred in granting summary
judgment in favor of defendants based on finding that plaintiffs failed to
present any genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendant knew or
should have known of dangerous conditions or that dangerous conditions occurred
with regularity and were therefore foreseeable where plaintiffs filed
depositions of witnesses that tended to show defendant’s actual or constructive
knowledge of dangerous conditions

CATHY SUKER and JOHNNY SUKER, Appellants, v. WHITE FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and PSL DONUTS, LLC, Appellees. 4th District. Case No.
4D15-1350. June 8, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth
Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; James W. Midelis, Judge; L.T. Case No.
562013CA003123. Counsel: William T. Viergever of Sonneborn Rutter & Cooney,
P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant. Joan Carlos Wizel, Amir Ghaeenzadeh and
Shaun Robert Koby of Lydecker Diaz, Miami, for Appellee PSL Donuts, LLC.

(PER CURIAM.) This appeal stems from a slip and fall
accident that occurred in front of a Dunkin Donuts operated by defendant PSL
Donuts, LLC. The plaintiffs, Cathy and Johnny Suker, appeal the final summary
judgment entered in favor of the defendant.1 The trial court granted summary
judgment based on Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2013), finding that the
plaintiffs failed to present any genuine issues of material fact as to whether
the defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous conditions or that the
dangerous conditions occurred with regularity and were therefore foreseeable.
We reverse.

“A trial court’s entry of a final summary judgment is
reviewed de novo.” Burton v. MDC PGA Plaza Corp., 78 So.3d 732,
733 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). “In reviewing a summary judgment, [the court] must
consider all record evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.
If material facts are at issue and the slightest doubt exists, summary judgment
must be reversed.” Aery v. Wallace Lincoln-Mercury, LLC, 118 So. 3d 904,
910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Mills v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 27 So. 3d 95, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)).

In this case, where plaintiffs filed the depositions of
three witnesses, including the deposition of an employee of the defendant, that
tended to show the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of the
dangerous conditions that existed at the tiled entrance to the establishment
when the tile was wet, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact
remained and that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the
defendant. We also find the defendant’s alternative arguments for affirming the
summary judgment to be unpersuasive.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded. (CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and
MAY, JJ., concur.)

__________________

1The plaintiffs do not appeal the
summary judgment entered in favor of White Family Limited Partnership.

* *
*