Trip on a “Humped” Mat and Fall Injury Claims in Florida

Justin Ziegler, Lawyer

9 years ago

“Rumpled” mat next to a soda machine at a supermarket in Miami, Florida.

Humped rug next to a soda machine at a supermarket in Miami, Florida — “Rumpled” mat next to a soda machine at a supermarket in Miami, Florida.

You may trip over a “humped” mat and fall at a premises in Florida. If so, you may be entitled to damages.

Your trip and fall may occur at a supermarket, store or many other places. A great way for me to start talking about Florida trip and fall claims on a bunched mat is to give an example of an actual case.

Though this case is not mine, I have handled and settled cases where someone trip and falls, including over a humped mat.

DeCruz-Haymer v. Festival Food Mkt., Inc., 117 So. 3d 885, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)

DeCruz-Haymer is an appeal from Paulette De Cruz-Haymer’s lawsuit against Festival Food Market. Festival was doing business as Bravo Supermarket. (Learn more about slip, trip and fall claims against Florida supermarkets).

This appeal was in 2013 in the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. This case is still good law. The 4th DCA hears appeals for Palm Beach, Broward, St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties.

A Fort Lauderdale lawyer represented the plaintiff (injured person). A Miami attorney represented Bravo supermarket.

Ruling

The appeals court said that under the obvious danger doctrine, a landowner can avoid liability for conditions that are known or obvious to an injured party. Paulette De Cruz-Haymer sued Festival Food Market, Inc., which operates Bravo Supermarkets (“Bravo”), after she tripped on a mat outside the only public entrance and exit to its store.

The trial court granted summary judgment (a dismissal) for Bravo based on the obvious danger doctrine. Paulette appealed. The appeals court reversed, holding that under the facts of this case, Bravo’s duty still had a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition even though the mat was obvious.

Tip: Every case is different. There are some cases where a supermarket or other operator may not have a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition if the dangerous condition is obvious.

Facts

Paulette and her husband, Linden Haymer, went to Bravo to buy groceries. The store had only one public entrance and exit. Neither Paulette nor Linden could remember whether a mat was present at the entrance when they entered the store on the day she fell.

Tip: Complete a detailed slip and fall questionnaire as soon as possible after the accident. Do not give away free points by later forgetting things that you can write down now and remember.

However, Paulette recalled that in the past, there was a mat in front of the door. After making purchases, Linden took a shopping cart full of items back to the car while Paulette remained inside to buy some items they had forgotten.

As Linden went to leave the store, he had to wait because an employee was laying a mat down outside the front door. Linden walked over the mat and noticed it was not laid completely flat, but parts were slightly “humped.”

The mat was not fastened or affixed to the ground. Linden stepped over the humps to continue on his way.

When Paulette exited the store, holding a bag with two soda bottles, she tripped on the mat and fell.

Tip: Your trip and fall case is usually more difficult if you are holding objects, particular a large object, in your hands when you fall. The defense may argue that your view may have been obstructed by the objects.

Paulette testified that her foot “hooked” on the mat just as she stepped out of the door. Paulette fell face down, suffering a cut above her left eye and injuring her neck, back, both elbows, and both knees.

A Bravo supervisor allegedly told Linden that Paulette’s fall was Bravo’s fault.

Tip: It helps if a supermarket or premises manager says that your fall was their fault. It is even better if they tell you specifically what they did wrong (e.g. forgot to inspect the mat for humps, etc.).

Paulette sued Bravo, alleging Bravo was negligent in:

1. Creating or allowing a dangerous condition

2. Failing to maintain its premises, and

3. Failing to warn of a dangerous condition.

Bravo responded, alleging several affirmative defenses, including that the mat was an open and obvious condition and that Paulette was negligent in failing to avoid the mat.

Fact: Paulette had a duty to use reasonable care when walking. Negligence, if any, assigned to her is known as comparative negligence.

Bravo moved for summary judgment (dismissal) solely on grounds that the mat was an open and obvious condition as a matter of law. The trial court granted Bravo’s motion. (The court dismissed the case).

Analysis

Paulette argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. She further argues that while the open and obvious nature of a danger may discharge Bravo’s duty to warn, it does not discharge Bravo’s duty to maintain its property in a safe condition.

She contends there are material issues of fact regarding whether Bravo maintained its property in a safe condition at the location where she fell.

Tip: If the injured person can show that there are material issues of fact, the case can go to a jury. Once the supermarket knows that a case can get to a jury, they usually make a settlement offer. The same is true for any landowner or premises operator.

“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.” Aaron v. Palatka Mall, L.L.C., 908 So.2d 574, 576-77 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing Ashcroft v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 492 So.2d 1309 (Fla.1986)).

The Palatka case involved a trip and fall on a parking bumper. (Learn about slip, trip and fall claims against Florida shopping malls and other malls).

The test is not whether the object is obvious, but whether the dangerous condition of the object is obvious. Brady v. State Paving Corp., 693 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). “In order to determine whether the doctrine applies in a given case, the courts are required to consider all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident and the alleged dangerous condition.”

The appeals court said that in this case, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the dangerous condition of the mat was open and obvious. Both Paulette and Linden knew a mat was present outside the front door of Bravo.

Both knew the mat was not secured to the ground. Linden testified in deposition that he saw an employee lay the mat in front of the door, noticed the mat was not perfectly flat, and stepped over the hump in the mat to avoid it.

My thoughts: I do not know why the court says that Paulette knew that mat was not secured to the ground. Even if Paulette knew that the mat was not secured to the ground, how did she know that is was “humped?”

Also, when Bravo calculates the value of Paulette’s case, it will discount the full settlement value of the case because someone (in this case, her husband, Linden) was able to get past the mat without tripping on it. Bravo will argue that this mat is not as dangerous, if at all, as Paulette claims.

The court said that thus, both the existence of the mat and the fact that it was not secured and not flat was not hidden or latent in any way. The trial court did not err in holding that the mat was an open and obvious danger.

However, the trial court erred in entering a full summary judgment against Paulette. A landowner owes a business invitee two independent duties:

“(1) to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and (2) to give warning of concealed perils.” Burton v. MDC PGA Plaza Corp., 78 So.3d 732, 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). In that case, an injured person sued a shopping mall and CVS. (Learn about injury claims against CVS in Florida).

Paulette alleged a breach of both duties in her lawsuit. While the fact that a danger is obvious discharges a landowner’s duty to warn, it does not discharge the landowner’s duty to maintain his premises. Spatz v. Embassy Home Care, Inc., 9 So.3d 697, 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Fieldhouse v. Tam Inv. Co., 959 So.2d 1214, 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

When an injured party alleges that the owner or possessor breached the duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, an issue of fact is generally raised as to whether the condition was dangerous and whether the owner or possessor should have anticipated that the dangerous condition would cause injury despite the fact it was open and obvious.”

Moreover, when the failure to maintain premises is claimed, the obvious nature of the danger creates an issue of fact regarding the plaintiff’s own comparative negligence. (“A plaintiff’s knowledge of a dangerous condition … simply raises the issue of comparative negligence and limits dismissal.”)

Linden testified that the hump in the mat occurred when the employee laid the mat down, as opposed to some invitee rumpling it as he or she was entering or leaving.

With only one public entrance, invitees had only one route to enter the store.

My thoughts: The appeals court mentions two (2) times, in its ruling, that there was only one entrance to the store. The court seems to think that this is an important fact in this case.

This leads me to believe that a supermarket’s, or other businesses’, claims adjuster would discount the full settlement value of the case less for the lady’s comparative negligence because there was only one entrance to the store.

Linden’s testimony creates an issue of material fact regarding whether Bravo should have expected that invitees were likely to trip over a rumpled mat despite the fact the mat’s existence and condition was open and obvious.

Thus, the appeals court reverse entry of summary judgment on this basis and let the case continue to trial. As I said before, the supermarket’s (or its insurer’s) claims adjuster will likely offer money to the injured person because this case is allowed to continue towards trial.

My actual case – Settlement for Trip on Mat and Fall

Settlement for my client when she alleged that she tripped over a mat that was sticking out in the aisle in a Miami, Florida Publix. She hurt her knee, ankle and wrist.

June 2014 – Defense Verdict for Publix. Trip on Raised Part of Mat.

A lady was shopping at Publix Supermarket in West Palm Beach, Florida. She claimed that she was walking to the bathroom when she tripped on a raised part of a mat and fell. This is not my case.

The picture below is not the actual mat. However, I assume that the shopper claimed that the rug looked like this:

She sued Publix in Palm Beach County, Florida. She claimed that Publix was negligent in maintaining the walkway area, and failing to warn of the dangerous condition (the raised mat).

She sued for bodily injury, pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, permanent impairment,mental anguish, loss of capacity to enjoy life, medical expenses and aggravation of a pre-existing condition.

As in almost every Florida trip and fall case, Publix denied liability.

Supermarkets often deny liability in claims if you trip on a raised mat and fall.

Publix is not alone is denying liability in trip and fall cases. Other supermarkets and businesses are likely to do the same.

They placed blame on her for not being aware and not using more care while walking. Publix allegedly argued that her injury was not casually related to the fall.

The shopper claimed that Publix’s last offer was $250,000. The jury found that Publix was not negligent. The date of the accident was in January 2012. Songin v. Publix Super Markets.