Blog
Is this a joke? A lawsuit over a slip on a banana peel, and damages from the resulting fall?
Bringing the issue home, can a condominium or homeowners’ association really prevent being sued for a slip and fall on common elements or common area? Are there steps that might reduce the chance? How about considerations that “enhance” (to use a euphemism) the chance of a lawsuit?
What lessons may be learned from a real-life slip on a banana peel? The lessons may be found in a recent Florida appellate court decision reversing a summary judgment. Following an incident at a Walmart, the original trial court’s judgment was in favor of Walmart, apparently finding that a jury could not reasonably determine that Walmart was negligent for the banana peel on the floor. The appellate court ruled that the claimant was entitled to a trial and that a jury may decide whether Walmart had “constructive knowledge” of a banana peel which was on the entrance floor for eight minutes.
The facts in Ouedraogo v. Walmart Stores East, LP, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D 293 (Fla. 1st DCA, February 18, 2026), indicate that after slipping and falling on a banana peel inside the entrance of a Walmart store, the claimant sued Walmart for injuries he sustained.
The claimant submitted surveillance footage and photographs showing that the banana peel was on the floor for almost eight minutes before the fall. A Walmart employee testified that she and another employee had been working as hosts that day and that she was in the area when the fall occurred. The trial court granted summary judgment for Walmart, finding:
Though employees were arguably near the banana peel, it would be unreasonable to assume the employees would be able to observe and notice the banana peel, as doing so would have required them to turn their heads at least 90 degrees. The fact that the banana peel was on the floor for just under 8 minutes, is irrelevant.
The Florida appellate court disagreed and reversed the summary judgment for Walmart. The appellate court explained that Florida law provides that the property owner owes a duty to its invitees to exercise reasonable care to maintain the premises in a safe condition. A banana peel on the floor is not a safe condition!
The appellate court explained that a claimant who sues a property owner for negligence must prove that the business had an actual or “constructive knowledge” of the dangerous condition, i.e., banana peel on the floor, and did not rectify the situation.
What proves this “constructive knowledge”? Constructive knowledge can be proven by evidence showing two elements. First, that the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time; and, second, that the business should have known of the condition. In this case, the claimant showed that there were several employees in the area where the banana peel was located and that one employee walked past it.
The appellate court stated: “a trial judge cannot conclude as a matter of law whether the duration of which an object was on the floor is sufficient to create an issue of fact because that is a question within the jury’ province.” The case was returned for a jury trial to determine whether or not Walmart had constructive knowledge of the banana peel on the floor.
Tick, Tick, Tick: Six minutes, five, four, three or two? Anticipating the reader’s next question, no, the appellate court was not asked to determine how long is too long for a banana peel to stay on the floor. Thus, the appellate court did not venture when is too long.
For Florida communities, the answer to what is too long likely is found in the circumstances. The entrance to a busy store with staff stationed adjacent to the entrance might require a shorter response time than the corner of a room behind a door that is rarely transversed.
The lesson for staff in Florida communities may be simple: If you see it, report it! If it does not belong on the floor, remove it!