TORTS: NEGLIGENCE: PREMISES LIABILITY: SLIP AND FALL: COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: PLAINTIFF WAS NOT COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT FOR WEARING FOUR TO FIVE INCH HIGH-HEELED SHOES TO WORK

Bongiorno v. Americorp, Inc., ___ So. 3d ___, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D760 (Fla. 5th DCA March 27, 2015)

The plaintiff slipped and fell on an unusually slippery floor in the restroom of the office building where she worked. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found that the plaintiff was 50% comparatively negligent because she was wearing four to five inch high-heeled shoes when the accident occurred, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court defined the issue as “whether [the defendant] sustained its burden of proving that [the plaintiff] had a duty not to wear high-heeled shoes to work,” and the resolution of that issue depended upon whether the plaintiff’s conduct created a foreseeable zone of risk. The court concluded that “[the defendant] failed to sustain its burden of proving that [the plaintiff] created a foreseeable zone of risk by wearing high-heeled shoes to work and, therefore, the trial court erred in finding her comparatively negligent for her injuries. Accordingly, [the appellate court] reverse[d] and remand[ed] for entry of a judgment in [the plaintiff’s] favor without the reduction for her alleged comparative negligence.”

To read more briefs in the Torts: Negligence category of the Kashi Law Letter, please click here, http://www.kashilawletter.com/category/torts/negligence/.

To read more briefs in the Torts: Premises Liability category of the Kashi Law Letter, please click here, http://www.kashilawletter.com/category/torts/premises-liability/.

To read more briefs in the Torts: Slip and Fall category of the Kashi Law Letter, please click here, http://www.kashilawletter.com/category/torts/slip-and-fall/.