Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hilliard v. Speedway Superamerica LLC
Citations: 766 So. 2d 1153; 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11018; 2000 WL 1224852Docket: No. 4D99-2574
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 30, 2000; Florida; State Appellate Court
An order granting summary judgment in a trip and fall case at a gas station was reviewed and reversed. The case involved the appellant, who fell from a sidewalk to a driveway while exiting the store after purchasing gas. She noted the step down was approximately one to three feet from the door. An expert affidavit indicated that industry standards require clear delineation of elevation changes to prevent optical illusions, asserting that the lack of color differentiation between the step and driveway contributed to the fall. Photographs of other gas stations demonstrated proper industry practices, showing distinct coloring to mark steps. The trial court's reliance on prior cases (Aventura Mall Venture v. Olson and Gorin v. City of St. Augustine) was deemed misplaced. While those cases ruled that conditions could be open and obvious, the expert’s testimony introduced a material issue of fact regarding negligence due to the failure to properly identify the elevation change. The expert's insights, alongside photographic evidence, highlighted a departure from past standards, suggesting that contemporary expectations for clearly marked elevation changes differ from those established decades earlier. Thus, the court found that the appellee's actions potentially constituted negligence, warranting a reversal of the summary judgment. A breach of industry standards serves as evidence of negligence, as established in Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Clark. The expert's affidavit and accompanying photographs indicate a material issue of fact that prevents summary judgment. Determining the existence and breach of an industry standard will rely on expert testimony. Additionally, the court addresses a discovery dispute where the appellant sought information about trips and falls on similar steps at the appellee's stores over three years. The trial court previously deemed this request overly broad and burdensome. However, the court concludes that discovery related to similar incidents at comparable locations owned by the defendant is appropriate. Past cases support this view, and there is no evidence indicating that the request is burdensome. Consequently, on remand, the appellant is entitled to responses to the interrogatories. GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ. concur.