Actual knowledge means the business was aware of that particular hazard in that place and time. Constructive knowledge, per F.S. 768.0755, is proven with circumstantial evidence that shows:
- Dangerous condition existed for a period of time wherein, in the ordinary exercise of care, the business should have known about the condition;
- Condition occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.
The dangerous condition alone or even the fact that plaintiff was hurt – even severely – isn’t enough to prevail. One must show either actual or constructive knowledge. Most slip-and-fall cases are based on constructive knowledge, as actual knowledge can be difficult to prove. Continue reading