Section 768.0755 - Premises liability for transitory foreign substances in a business establishment

5 Analyses of this statute by attorneys

  1. Conflict In Fla. Regarding Premises Liability Law

    Carlton Fields Jorden BurtGregory BoulosApril 11, 2014

    On Feb. 26, 2014, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal (West Palm Beach) certified a conflict with the Third District Court of Appeal (Miami) regarding whether Florida Statute § 768.0755, which governs premises liability actions against business establishments, applies retroactively. The statute, enacted in 2010, requires a plaintiff to prove that the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff’s injuries to establish liability against the defendant.

  2. Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Holds Statute Establishing Standard of Proof in Slip-and-Fall Cases Is Retroactive

    Wilson Elser LLPMay 22, 2013

    In Kenz v. Miami-Dade County and Unicco Service Co.,2013 (Fla. 3d DCA April 24, 2013), Florida’s Third DCA ruled that § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2010) must be applied retroactively to incidents that occurred before the statute became effective. The statute requires plaintiffs in slip-and-fall claims to prove that a business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of a transitory substance and should have taken action to remedy it.

  3. 4th DCA Reinforces Burden is on Plaintiff to Prove Actual or Constructive Notice in Slip and Falls

    Rumberger | KirkBrittney SavinoMarch 3, 2020

    Florida Statute §768.0710 was eventually repealed in 2010 and the Florida Legislature enacted §768.0755 in its stead, placing a greater burden on the plaintiff to establish the premises owner’s liability in transitory foreign substance cases. Specifically, Florida Statute §768.0755 places the burden on the plaintiff to prove that the business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard. Pembroke Lakes Mall Ltd. V. McGruder, 137 So. 3d 418, 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

  4. Limiting Scope Of Discovery In Fla. Premises Liability

    Carlton Fields Jorden BurtGregory BoulosFebruary 18, 2014

    The Third District Court of Appeal determined that the trial court impermissibly allowed discovery that was irrelevant with respect to plaintiff’s burden of proof under the applicable statute. In reaching its conclusion, the Santos court compared the statute setting forth the plaintiff’s burden of proof in commercial premises liability cases, Florida Statute § 768.0755 (2010), to the one it repealed — Florida Statute § 768.0710 (2009). Florida Statute § 768.0755(1) states: 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 (emphasis added).

  5. Florida’s Third DCA Limits Scope Of Discovery In Premises Liability Cases

    Carlton Fields Jorden BurtSeptember 3, 2013

    The Third District Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court allowed the plaintiff to obtain information that was irrelevant with respect to her burden of proof under the applicable statute. In reaching its conclusion, the Court compared the applicable statute, Florida Statute § 768.0755 (2010), to the repealed Florida Statute § 768.0710 (2009). Florida Statute § 768.0755(1) states, 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 (emphasis added).