1. Issue
1.1. The issue before the court is to determine whether the summary judgment rendered in favor of Dollar General on the breach of duty of care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition and to warn Mr. Fredrick was appropriate given the timeline to warn and remedy the dangerous situation of the floor.
2. Conclusion
2.1. The trial court maintained its finding that Dollar General did not breach its duty to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition. However, they reversed the judgment that Dollar General did not breach its duty to warn Mr. Frederick and remanded further proceedings on the case.
3. Impact on the Parties
3.1. The summary judgment omitting to address the duty to warn shows an ineffectiveness in applying the tort law, leading to an inappropriate decision favoring General Dollar and denying Mr. Fredrick. As a result, additional time and resources were used in an appeal. However, the court successfully reversed its judgment on the breach of duty of care to warn in favor of the appellant and remanded further proceedings on the issue.
4. Importance
4.1. The reversal of the summary judgment confirms that business owners need to fulfill their duties of maintaining their premises in a reasonably safe condition to prevent customers from foreseeable harm and be prompt to warn and conceal dangerous conditions for safety known to them. Employee training should also emphasize the consequences of this unintentional tortuous act.
5. Facts
5.1. Parties:
5.1.1. Lindsey Fredrick, appellant v.
5.1.2. Dolgencorp, LLC, appellee
5.2. What Happened
5.2.1. Mr. Fredrick, the appellee, slipped and fell on a laundry detergent spilled by a customer in a Dollar General store. The store manager was behind the counter with another employee when he noticed the spill. He left to retrieve cleaning supplies to clean the spill without alerting the other employee or putting a warning sign for the potential hazard posed by the spill. Mr. Fredrick entered the store when the store manager was retrieving cleaning supplies, slipped on the detergent spill, and sustained injuries from her fall. The incident occurred within fifty-one seconds of the spill, and the floor was cleaned eighty-three seconds after the spill. Ms. Fredrick filed a negligence complaint against the store after the incident alleging a breach of duty of care, putting the appellant in harm's way. To substantiate the complaint, the appellant filed deposition of the General Store employees, who testified that she was not alerted of the laundry detergent spill. Dollar General filed a motion for summary judgment despite acknowledging the spill and the failure to warn the appellant. General store motion did not address the breach of duty of care. However, the trial court granted the motion for final summary judgment to Dollar General that they did not breach its duty of care. Mr. Fredrick appealed the court summary judgment. The Appeal court of Florida Second District reversed the summary judgment on the breach of duty to warn and remanded for further proceedings on the case.
5.3. Procedural History
5.3.1. The Fredrick v. Dolgencorp, LLC case appeals to the District Court of Appeal of Florida Second District to reverse the judgment rendered on the appellee's breach of duty of care. Mr. Lindsey Fredrick, the appellant, filed an appeal to reverse a final summary judgment favoring Dolgencorp, LLC, appellant. Mr. Fredrick alleged that Dollar General breached its duty of care due to the store's failure to secure its premises and warn him of the spill, causing the appellee to slip and fall on laundry detergent. The Dollar General store filed a motion for a final summary judgment in response to the appellee's initial complaint, which the trial court successfully granted. The trial court ruling on the summary judgment favored Dollar General because they deemed the store did not have sufficient time to fulfill its duty to remedy or warn Mr. Frederick of the dangerous condition caused by the spill. Mr. Fredrick appealed the summary judgment on the breach of duty to warn him. The appeal court reversed its decision on the breach of duty of care due to Dollar General's failure to warn Mr. Fredrick and remanded further proceedings on the issue.
6. Rule of Law
6.1. The court will use the Tort Law to determine whether unintentional negligence occurred due to a breach of duty from Dollar General to act reasonably to protect Ms. Fredrick from a foreseeable risk.
6.1.1. Ms. Fredrick must prove all elements of breach of duty by negligence and foreseeability of the risk to establish Dollar General liability.
6.1.1.1. Duty: Dollar General owed a duty of care to Ms. Fredrick
6.1.1.2. Breach: Dollar General failed to live up to its duty of care.
6.1.1.3. Causation: Dollar General breach caused Ms. Fredrick’s injuries. Using the but for test, whether the store manager action to not put warning sign to alert and not notify his colleagues of the Laundry detergent spill created a foreseeable risk of injury.
6.1.1.4. Damages: Ms. Fredrick suffered a legally recognizable injury.
7. Analysis/Application
7.1. Appellee:
7.1.1. Dollar General rejected Mr. Fredrick's argument for reversal with respect to maintaining its premises in a reasonable safe condition. Despite acknowledging their awareness of the spill, Dollar General argued that they had insufficient time to clean the spill and warn Mr. Fredrick. They maintained that the store manager acted reasonably by leaving the scene to get supplies to remedy the condition. Thus, they believed that the summary judgment granted in their favor was justified.
7.1.1.1. Court: While the court agrees with the trial court decision that there was no breach of duty to maintain its property in a reasonable safe condition, they concluded that the final summary judgment on insufficient time to warn Mr. Fredrick was inappropriate.
7.1.1.2. Why: The court held that summary judgment should be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact. However, the employees' testimonies represent genuine issues of material fact of Dollar General's breach of duty to warn Mr. Fredrick. Thus, the summary judgment rendered by the trial court on Dollar General's breach of duty to warn should be reversed.
7.2. Appellants:
7.2.1. Mr. Fredrick has the burden of proving that Dollar General breach its duty of care to maintain the premises in a reasonable safe condition and warn him of the dangerous condition caused by the detergent spill.
7.2.1.1. Mr. Fredrick claims that Dollar General breached its duty of care by failing to maintain its property in a reasonable safe condition and by failing to warn him of the hazardous condition posed by the detergent, causing him to slip and fall on a laundry detergent. In response to Dollar General argument on the breach of duty to warn, Mr. Fredrick produced evidence of testimonies from the employee behind the counter and the store manager that she was informed of the spill and emphasized that the employee could have used a sandwich board to alert her of the floor dangerous condition.