Grimes v. Family Dollar, Case No. 3D14-1874 (Fla. 3d DCA, May 4, 2016), rehearing denied, June 30, 2016.*
Bresky Law recently obtained reversal of a final judgment that was in favor of a landowner and lessee who were alleged to be negligent in maintaining their premises and failing to warn of a dangerous condition on the premises.
The Appellees sought rehearing, certification, and rehearing en banc following the Third DCA’s opinion. The Appellees asked the Third DCA to reconsider its decision or to certify that its decision conflicted with those from other Florida district courts of appeal. Appellees argued that the panel had improperly distinguished Wolf v. Sam’s East, Inc., 132 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) and overlooked that in Wolf the Fourth DCA had rejected the plaintiff’s argument that there had been prior falls on the same tree roots.
In opposition, we argued that the Third DCA had not overlooked any point of fact or law, but had concluded that the facts of this case were different from Wolf and required reversal of the summary judgment. We argued that there was no conflict between the Third DCA’s decision and Wolf or other pertinent case law.
The Third DCA denied the Appellees’ post-opinion motions on June 30, 2016. This favorable result for our client allows her to proceed to litigate her claim to recover damages for her injuries.
* As of the date of posting this article, the time in which the Appellees could seek review in the Florida Supreme Court has not yet expired.