holding that Fla. Stat. § 768.0755 is a procedural statute that does not create a new element of proof in a premises liability cause of action, but merely codifies a means and method by which a plaintiff shows that the defendant-business establishment has breached its duly of care
How later courts described this case
- holding that Fla. Stat. § 768.0755 is a procedural statute that does not create a new element of proof in a premises liability cause of action, but merely codifies a means and method by which a plaintiff shows that the defendant-business establishment has breached its duly of care
- concluding that the amendment to § 768.0755 was a procedural change in the law because, rather than alter any element of the claim, it simply changed the method of proving an element of that claim
- holding that a new statute concerning burden of proof—enacted after the cause of action, but before trial—was procedural, retroactive, and applied to the case
- “[I]n the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by Pembroke Lakes Mall Ltd. v. McGruder, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2578 (2014)
While we agree with the way the Kenz court framed the issue, we disagree with the court’s conclusion.
Disagreed with by Deborah Glaze, as Parent etc. v. Kathy Worley, DBA Chick- FIL-A etc., 157 So. 3d 552 (2015)
Respectfully, we disagree with the Kenz court’s conclusion because the 2010 statute, section 768.0755, reinserts the pre-Owens [v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So.2d 315 (Fla.2001)] knowledge element into slip and fall claims.
The opinion
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge
(specially concurring).
Because it is clear, as the Court holds, that summary judgment is appropriate either way, simply because there is not a semblance of evidence of negligence, I would affirm without reaching the primary issue discussed by the Court. See Pub. Health Trust of Miami-Dade County v. Metellus, 948 So.2d 4, 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (Shepherd, J., specially concurring) (citing PDK Labs., Inc. v. U.S. DEA., 362 F.3d 786, 799 (D.C.Cir.2004)).