Trip and fall elevation change

In trip and fall cases, Plaintiff’s often claim negligence of Defendants due to what many would classify as ordinary changes in elevation. Changes in elevation are common and ordinary facts of life and travel. Four cases that can be used to either dismiss or obtain summary judgment in change of elevation matters are:

• Casby v. Flint, 520 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1988). In Casby, the Plaintiff fell due to a change in elevation at a home because of the number of people at the location. The court held “Multiple floor levels in a dimly lit or overcrowded room are not inherently dangerous conditions. They are so commonplace that the possibility of their existence is known to all. Warning of such common conditions goes beyond the duty of reasonable care owed to the invitee.
• Gorin v. City of St. Augustine, 595 So.2d 1062 (5DCA 1992). In Gorin, the Plaintiff alleged she fell off of a sidewalk onto the driveway when going to a tram in St. Augustine and claimed the similar colors created an “optical illusion.” In affirming summary judgment, the Court held, “Some conditions are simply so open and obvious, so common and so ordinarily innocuous, that they can be held as a matter of law to not constitute a hidden dangerous condition. We also agree with the Third District that ‘to hold that an ordinary sidewalk curb, without more, is inherently dangerous would make every municipality and business establishment the virtual insurer of the safety of every pedestrian.’ Given the high traffic of passengers boarding the tram, some will fall no matter what color the curb might be, especially when the passengers are looking at the tram rather than where they are walking.
• Rosenfeld v. Walt Disney, 651 So.2d 811 (5DCA 1995). In Rosenfeld, the Plaintiff fell over a curb on Disney’s “Main Street USA” alleging they were colored in a way to create an optical illusion of flatness. The Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Walt Disney World, holding, “This court has held en banc that changes in levels from ordinary curbs to streets do not subject a landowner to premises liability for injuries suffered by persons falling over the curbs and that an optical illusion of flatness created by the colors of the curb and street does not make them inherently or unreasonably dangerous, as a matter of law.  Disney’s Main Street curbs and streets are recreations of ordinary village and town streets and curbs, although located in its amusement park. That fact alone is not sufficient to remove Disney’s ordinary streets and curbs from the category of open and obvious hazards.”
• Aventura Mall v. Olsen, 561 So.2d 319 (3DCA 1990). In Adventura Mall, the Court reversed a judgment in favor of Plaintiff when she fell from a 6” sidewalk stepdown to the parking lot because there was no yellow border. The Court reversed holding, “The curb in question was not a concealed or latent danger… Furthermore, this was not a case where the surrounding conditions of the step-down were sufficient to transform a normally non-negligent condition into a negligent one. [Plaintiff’s] allegation that an inherently dangerous condition existed because the color of the curb “crown” blended in with the driveway below and concealed the existence of the step-down is likewise without merit. It is a matter of common knowledge that ‘the sidewalks and the dropoff[s] from such sidewalks to the streets have the same color as the streets in thousands of instances throughout Florida.’ …[Plaintiff] encountered a condition which was permanent, in place, and obvious. There was no proof of any defect in the sidewalk curb which caused [Plaintiff] to fall. In other words, there was no evidence of negligence. We agree with the Fifth District’s recent pronouncement in Ferguson that ‘some conditions are simply so open and obvious, that they can be held as a matter of law not to constitute a hidden dangerous condition.’ The condition complained of here represents such a case. To hold that an ordinary sidewalk curb, without more, is inherently dangerous would make every municipality and business establishment the virtual insurer of the safety of every pedestrian. Accordingly, we find as a matter of law that Aventura committed no act of negligence in this case.

 

Plaintiff’s often attempt to argue certain conditions create a lighting issue or other circumstance that would create a heightened duty to warn or an issue with the maintenance; however, the above cases can be used to argue that most elevations changes are normal and ordinary and to be anticipated by pedestrians.