The blame is all yours

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 51 NUMBER 26

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF JULY 3, 2026

WAL-MART COULD NOT AVOID LIABILITY UNDER INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR DEFENSE WHERE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THAT IT CREATED OR APPROVED A CONCEALED DANGEROUS ELECTRICAL CONDITION

Wal-Mart Stores East, LP v. Johnson, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1278 (Fla. 2d DCA June 24, 2026):

The plaintiff, an employee of an independent contractor hired to install an automatic door at one of the defendant’s stores, was seriously injured when he received an electrical shock from an improperly grounded junction box and fell from a ladder onto a concrete floor.

The plaintiff had installed similar doors at dozens of Wal-Mart stores. After removing the old door and installing the new one, his final task was to connect the new automatic door to an existing electrical junction box located in a locked room accessible only to Wal-Mart personnel. Before working inside the box, the plaintiff attempted to verify that the electrical wires were safe. When he touched the metal cover of the junction box, he received a powerful electrical shock that threw him from the ladder.

After recovering, the plaintiff discovered that the junction box was not properly grounded, contained uncapped wires, and had not been securely mounted. Both parties’ electrical engineering experts agreed the junction box violated the National Electrical Code and should have been safe to touch if properly maintained.

Following a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant argued on appeal that it owed no duty because the plaintiff was an employee of an independent contractor performing the work he had been hired to do.

The Second District affirmed.

The court acknowledged the general rule that property owners are ordinarily not liable for injuries sustained by employees of independent contractors during the performance of their work. However, one well-recognized exception applies where the property owner negligently creates or approves a dangerous condition of which it has actual or constructive knowledge.

Here, the evidence showed that the defective junction box was located in a secured area under the defendant’s exclusive control, had likely existed as a dangerous condition for years, and violated basic electrical safety requirements. Both experts agreed that the plaintiff had every reason to expect the exterior of the box to be safe to touch. Moreover, the plaintiff had been hired to install a door—not to repair defective electrical wiring hidden inside an improperly grounded junction box.

The defendant also controlled access to the breaker room, whose approximately 200 breakers were unlabeled, making it virtually impossible for the plaintiff to safely de-energize the circuit without disrupting store operations.

Under these circumstances, the jury reasonably could conclude that the defendant had constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and either created or negligently approved it. Because the concealed electrical defect was not inherent in the work the plaintiff had been hired to perform, the independent contractor defense did not relieve the defendant of its duty to maintain reasonably safe premises.

Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motions for summary judgment and directed verdict, and the court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT WASTEWATER BACKUP ORIGINATED FROM COMMON ELEMENTS THE ASSOCIATION WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN

Vera v. Parkwood Condo Ass’n, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1287 (Fla. 3d DCA June 24, 2026):

The plaintiff sued the defendant condominium association after slipping and falling inside her condominium unit when wastewater backed up through her bathroom.

The plaintiff alleged that the backup originated from wastewater pipes located in the condominium’s common elements, which the defendant was responsible for maintaining. The defendant denied liability and maintained that the plaintiff could not establish where the blockage actually occurred.

Following discovery, the trial court entered summary judgment for the defendant, which the appellate court affirmed.

The court explained that although the plaintiff was not required to eliminate every conceivable cause of the wastewater backup, she was required to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that it was more likely than not that the blockage occurred in pipes maintained by the defendant rather than within her own unit.

While the plaintiff presented evidence suggesting several possible causes of the backup, none of the evidence established that the blockage more probably than not originated in the common wastewater system. Instead, the evidence left multiple equally plausible explanations, including causes for which the defendant would bear no responsibility.

Florida law does not permit a jury to speculate between equally probable causes. When the evidence supports no more than competing possibilities, the plaintiff fails to establish causation as a matter of law.

Because the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence creating a reasonable inference that the defendant’s common-area plumbing caused the wastewater backup, the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant.