Torts
— Premises liability — Trial court did not err in entering summary judgment
for defendant in slip and fall case

IAN SOKOLOFF, Appellant, vs. OCEANIA I CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D15-1601. L.T. Case No.
13-29361. Opinion filed March 23, 2016. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Miami-Dade County, Rosa I. Rodriguez, Judge. Counsel: Lindsey M. Tenberg
(Lighthouse Point); Law Offices of Robert J. Fenstersheib & Associates,
P.A., and Jason R. Manocchio (Hallandale Beach), for appellant. Richard A.
Sherman, Sr., and James W. Sherman (Fort Lauderdale); David S. Lefton and
Patricia E. Garagozlo (Plantation), for appellee.

(Before EMAS, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.)

(LOGUE, Judge.) In this slip-and-fall case, the plaintiff,
Ian Sokoloff, appeals the final summary judgment in favor of the Oceania I Condominium
Association. “Summary judgment is designed to test the sufficiency of the
evidence to determine if there is sufficient evidence at issue to justify a
trial or formal hearing on the issues raised in the pleadings.” Fla. Bar v.
Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195, 1200 (Fla. 2006). The stated objective of the
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action” is ill served by sending a case to trial only to
have the judge direct a verdict. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.010; Martin
Petroleum Corp. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 769 So. 2d 1105, 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA
2000) (“A party should not be put to the expense of going through a trial,
where the only possible result will be a directed verdict.”).

Here, there was no genuine issue of material fact and the
Association was entitled to relief as a matter of law. See Earley v.
Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Orlando, 61 So. 2d 477, 478 (Fla. 1952) (“The
presence of the mat upon the floor and its construction was, or should have
been, obvious to the [plaintiff] . . . . If the mat was dangerous at all (which
we do not decide), the danger was not latent or concealed, but patent and
obvious, and the ordinary use of her senses by the appellant would have
disclosed it to her.”); Spatz v. Embassy Home Care, Inc., 9 So. 3d 697,
698-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“The obvious danger doctrine provides that an owner
or possessor of land is not liable for injuries to an invitee caused by a
dangerous condition on the premises when the danger is known or obvious to the
injured party, unless the owner or possessor should anticipate the harm despite
the fact that the dangerous condition is open and obvious.”) (citation
omitted).

Affirmed.