Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

A slip-and-fall accident does not mean that merely demonstrating that the person slipped and fell is sufficient.  Unless there is evidence showing that the defendant had knowledge of the allegedly dangerous condition, the case may be dismissed. This scenario is exactly what transpired in Suarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Plaintiff, Isabel Suarez, testified that she slipped and fell on what appeared to be some “soap or some other similar substance” while shopping through Costco. However, Suarez presented no evidence indicating whether any Costco employee was aware of the substance on the floor. Costco filed a motion for summary judgment, to which Suarez failed to respond.  Although Suarez did not oppose the motion, Costco still had to show that it was entitled to summary judgment.

Here, the court determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact because the record “was completely devoid of any evidence supporting that [Costco] knew about the soap on the floor prior to [Suarez’s] fall, or that [Costco] somehow caused or created the condition on the floor.”  Accordingly, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered summary judgment in favor of Costco.

In most instances, a premises owner owes a duty of care to individuals on their property, particularly business invitees. This case underscores the necessity for a premises owner to possess actual or constructive knowledge of a hazardous condition. Without such knowledge, despite resulting injuries to a potential plaintiff, the premises owner may not be held liable. A slip-and-fall requires more than a mere demonstration of the accident itself.  Absent evidence of defendant’s knowledge of the hazardous condition, there can be no breach of the duty of reasonable care.