Florida Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment, Stresses Need to Properly File Video Evidence to Preserve Record

Marilyn Reynolds was a customer in the Belk, Inc. store when she tripped over an unsecured, wide-based metal stanchion and sustained injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment based on screen shots from store surveillance video, finding that the hazard was open and obvious and that the stanchion was not inherently dangerous. However, none of the screen shots actually depicted the stanchion that caused the fall, nor did they show the plaintiff looking at any stanchions located behind her.

The appellate court held that the defendant’s summary judgment evidence failed to conclusively negate the plaintiff’s sworn testimony that she was unaware of the stanchion until the fall occurred. Citing Muurahainen v. TJX Cos., 397 So. 3d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), the court emphasized that summary judgment evidence must conclusively, clearly, and completely negate a plaintiff’s sworn testimony to establish an open and obvious defense as a matter of law. Because the screen shots did not depict the actual hazard or the plaintiff’s visual perspective, triable issues of fact remained.

Notably, the court highlighted the critical importance of properly incorporating video evidence into the record. Although the defendant provided a copy of the full surveillance video to the trial court the day before the hearing, the video was never filed with the lower court or made part of the appellate record. The trial court commented on and appeared to rely upon the video in granting summary judgment, but the appellate court could not consider the video or any descriptions of its contents on appeal. This procedural deficiency underscores that parties relying on video evidence at summary judgment must ensure such evidence is formally filed and included in the record to preserve it for appellate review.

Accordingly, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The decision reinforces that defendants seeking summary judgment on open and obvious grounds must present evidence that directly addresses the specific hazard at issue and the plaintiff’s ability to perceive it, and they must properly incorporate that evidence into the court record.