Is 8 minutes long enough?

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 51 NUMBER 8

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 27, 2026

FIRST DCA REVERSES SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN SLIP AND FALL; SURVEILLANCE SHOWING BANANA PEEL ON FLOOR FOR JUST UNDER EIGHT MINUTES WITH MULTIPLE EMPLOYEES NEARBY (AND ONE WALKING RIGHT PAST IT) CREATES A JURY ISSUE ON CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 768.0755

Ouedraogo v. Walmart Stores East, LP, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D293 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 18, 2026):

Plaintiff slipped and fell on a banana peel at the entrance of the store. In opposing summary judgment, he submitted surveillance footage and photos showing the banana peel on the floor for almost eight minutes before the fall, with several employees nearby and at least one employee walking directly past the condition, plus deposition testimony from a store “host” working at the entrance.

Despite this evidence, the trial court granted summary judgment, reasoning it was “unreasonable” to expect employees to have noticed the peel, because to do so, they would have had to turn their heads about 90 degrees, and that the “just under 8 minutes” time the peel was on the ground, was irrelevant.

The First DCA reversed. It reaffirmed that an invitee injured by a transitory foreign substance must prove actual or constructive knowledge under section 768.0755. It noted that constructive knowledge may be shown circumstantially by evidence the condition existed long enough that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the business should have known of it.

The court found that the evidence plaintiff presented (employees in the area, one walking right past it, and the documented duration) was enough to create a genuine fact dispute on constructive knowledge, and that whether the length of time the peel was on the ground was a jury question, not something the trial judge could decide as a matter of law on summary judgment (a very helpful tidbit to use for future cases).

COURT DENIES CERTIORARI AND UPHOLDS ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF ATTORNEY COMMUNICATIONS WHERE TRIAL COURT FOUND JOINT REPRESENTATION AND A COMMON INTEREST UNDER SECTION 90.502; COMMON INTEREST EXCEPTION CAN APPLY EVEN IF THE CO-CLIENTS HAD SOME ADVERSE INTERESTS

The Chetrit Group v. EquiShares, Inc., 51 Fla. L. Weekly D305 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 18, 2026):

The plaintiff and the defendant entered a joint venture to acquire and redevelop a Hollywood Beach resort property. The plaintiff claimed it joined the venture expecting an equity stake to be documented in a written partnership agreement, but that the agreement was never finalized and the defendant “squeezed” the plaintiff out after the plaintiff invested years of work.

In discovery, the plaintiff sought communications between the defendant and the lawyer involved in the project concerning efforts to formalize the partnership agreement. The defendant claimed attorney client privilege, and asserted that the lawyer represented the defendant alone. The plaintiff argued the lawyer jointly represented both parties for the project, triggering the statutory common interest exception.

The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, found there was joint representation and a matter of common interest, and compelled production of the communications.

The defendant sought certiorari, which the court denied. It ruled that while certiorari review was appropriate to address compelled disclosure of allegedly privileged communications (because they cause irreparable harm) the court also concluded the trial judge did not depart from the essential requirements of law because competent, substantial evidence supported the key factual findings: i.e.,  that the lawyer was retained/consulted in common and that the communications were relevant to the joint venture matter of common interest under section 90.502(4)(e).

The court also rejected the defendant’s attempt to carve out “private” communications about partnership terms on the theory the parties’ interests were competing on those terms.

The trial court’s findings supported that the scope of the dual representation included advising both sides about the partnership agreement terms, and the common interest exception can still apply even where some adversity exists between co clients.