How to Draft a Research Memorandum for Slip and Fall Cases?

Question from Cee, How to Draft a Research Memorandum for Slip and Fall Cases?

Answer from AI:

Research Memorandum: Premises Liability Case – John Doe v. Budget Foods

Facts:
John Doe slipped and fell on spilled soda at Budget Foods, sustaining injuries. He was texting at the time of the fall. A “Wet Floor” sign was placed near the spill, but the timing of its placement is disputed. The store manager is unsure how long the soda was on the floor before the sign was placed.

Issue:
Does Budget Foods bear liability under Florida’s premises liability laws for John Doe’s injuries?

Rule:
Under Florida law, a business owner must maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition and warn of known dangers. (Fla. Stat. § 768.0755). The business must act if a dangerous condition exists that the owner knew or should have known about and failed to address. (Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 172 So.3d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)).

Application:

1. Plaintiff’s Perspective (John Doe):

   • Dangerous Condition: The spilled soda created a slippery hazard, a dangerous condition.
   • Knowledge: The store should have known about the spill, given its duration, and failed to clean it promptly or provide adequate warning.
   • Breach of Duty: Budget Foods breached its duty by not addressing the spill in a reasonable time, leading to John’s fall.

2. Defendant’s Perspective (Budget Foods):

   • Open and Obvious Danger: The spill was visible, and as such, the store may not have had a duty to warn, as customers are expected to notice obvious hazards.
   • Lack of Time to Respond: If the spill occurred shortly before the fall, the store may not have had sufficient time to clean it up.
   • Comparative Negligence: John’s texting contributed to the accident, potentially reducing his recovery under Florida’s pure comparative negligence system.

Relevant Cases:

• Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 172 So.3d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015): Establishes that businesses must act on known or should-have-known dangers. Here, the store’s knowledge of the spill’s duration is crucial.

• Fla. Stat. § 768.0755: Provides that businesses are not liable if the condition wasn’t discovered in time to clean it or the plaintiff was distracted, as in John’s case due to texting.

Conclusion:
Budget Foods may be liable if they knew or should have known about the spill and failed to act. However, defenses like the open and obvious nature of the spill and John’s comparative negligence could mitigate liability. The outcome hinges on whether the store had reasonable time to respond and whether John’s distraction contributed significantly.

Recommendation:
Further investigation into the spill’s duration and witness accounts is needed. Legal consultation is advised to navigate Florida’s premises liability laws and potential defenses.

Citations:

• Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 172 So.3d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
• Fla. Stat. § 768.0755 (2023).