41 Fla. L. Weekly D237a
FormTorts
— Premises liability — Trip and fall — Trial court did not err in entering
summary judgment for defendant in action alleging that plaintiff tripped on a
step leading from the pavement to a building owned by defendant where there was
no evidence of any defect in the step
— Premises liability — Trip and fall — Trial court did not err in entering
summary judgment for defendant in action alleging that plaintiff tripped on a
step leading from the pavement to a building owned by defendant where there was
no evidence of any defect in the step
EDA A. PEREZ-RIOS, Appellant, vs. THE GRAHAM COMPANIES,
Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D15-754. L.T. Case No. 13-19277. Opinion
filed January 20, 2016. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County,
Antonio Marin, Judge. Counsel: Lindsey M. Tenberg (Lighthouse Point), for
appellant. The Chartwell Law Offices, LLP, and Mitchell L. Lundeen, for
appellee.
Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D15-754. L.T. Case No. 13-19277. Opinion
filed January 20, 2016. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County,
Antonio Marin, Judge. Counsel: Lindsey M. Tenberg (Lighthouse Point), for
appellant. The Chartwell Law Offices, LLP, and Mitchell L. Lundeen, for
appellee.
(Before LAGOA, SALTER and LOGUE, JJ.)
(LOGUE, Judge.) In this slip-and-fall case, Eda A.
Perez-Rios, the plaintiff below, appeals a final summary judgment entered in
favor of The Graham Companies. At her deposition, Ms. Perez-Rios indicated
that, on the morning of a clear day, she tripped on a four-inch high step
leading from the pavement to a building owned by The Graham Companies. The step
was plainly visible. The pavement above and below the step was constructed of
red brick. In contrast, the step was constructed of white stone. Photographs of
the area where she fell, which she authenticated, indicated no particular
defect. There was no evidence of a foreign object on the step, uneven wear and
tear, inadequate lighting, or wet or slippery conditions. When directly asked,
Ms. Perez-Rios could not identify any defects in the step. No contradictory
evidence, such as an expert’s report, was submitted into the record which might
have created a disputed issue of fact regarding any defect in the step which
could be resolved only by a jury or judge sitting as a fact-finder.
Perez-Rios, the plaintiff below, appeals a final summary judgment entered in
favor of The Graham Companies. At her deposition, Ms. Perez-Rios indicated
that, on the morning of a clear day, she tripped on a four-inch high step
leading from the pavement to a building owned by The Graham Companies. The step
was plainly visible. The pavement above and below the step was constructed of
red brick. In contrast, the step was constructed of white stone. Photographs of
the area where she fell, which she authenticated, indicated no particular
defect. There was no evidence of a foreign object on the step, uneven wear and
tear, inadequate lighting, or wet or slippery conditions. When directly asked,
Ms. Perez-Rios could not identify any defects in the step. No contradictory
evidence, such as an expert’s report, was submitted into the record which might
have created a disputed issue of fact regarding any defect in the step which
could be resolved only by a jury or judge sitting as a fact-finder.
Under these circumstances, the trial court properly entered
summary judgment against Ms. Perez-Rios. “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). “A
party should not be put to the expense of going through a trial, where the only
possible result will be a directed verdict.” Martin Petroleum Corp. v.
Amerada Hess Corp., 769 So. 2d 1105, 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). See also
Aventura Mall Venture v. Olson, 561 So. 2d 319, 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
(“An owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which
would be obvious to him [or her] upon the ordinary use of his own sense[s], and
is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger.”)
(citation omitted); Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Ferguson, 556
So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (“Some conditions are simply so open and
obvious, so common and so ordinarily innocuous, that they can be held as a
matter of law to not constitute a hidden dangerous condition.”).
summary judgment against Ms. Perez-Rios. “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). “A
party should not be put to the expense of going through a trial, where the only
possible result will be a directed verdict.” Martin Petroleum Corp. v.
Amerada Hess Corp., 769 So. 2d 1105, 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). See also
Aventura Mall Venture v. Olson, 561 So. 2d 319, 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
(“An owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which
would be obvious to him [or her] upon the ordinary use of his own sense[s], and
is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger.”)
(citation omitted); Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Ferguson, 556
So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (“Some conditions are simply so open and
obvious, so common and so ordinarily innocuous, that they can be held as a
matter of law to not constitute a hidden dangerous condition.”).
Affirmed.
* *
*
*