Kelley Kronenberg Secures Summary Judgment in $750K Parking Garage Trip and Fall
Kelley Kronenberg Partner/Business Unit Leader Aaron Neifeld and Associate Ryleigh Walaconis secured a complete summary judgment victory for their property management clients in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, eliminating $750,000.00 in exposure from a premises liability claim arising from a trip and fall in a parking garage.
The case involved a plaintiff who tripped over a crack in the first floor of a parking garage attached to an office building on December 8, 2021. The plaintiff had driven to the garage to meet her daughter, who worked for one of the building’s tenants, so they could drive together to attend a parade at a different location.
Aaron and Ryleigh built their defense on two theories: the plaintiff’s legal status on the property as an uninvited licensee, and—more importantly—the complete absence of admissible evidence establishing the defendants’ notice of the alleged dangerous condition.
On the threshold issue of plaintiff’s status, they argued the plaintiff was merely an uninvited licensee—someone who entered the premises solely for her own convenience without express or reasonably implied invitation from the owners. The plaintiff admitted she was not a business invitee and had come to the parking garage only to meet with an employee of one of the commercial tenants so they could travel jointly to an event. Aaron and Ryleigh cited controlling precedent establishing that using private property as a stepping stone to reach another destination renders someone an uninvited licensee, owed only a duty to avoid willful and wanton harm.
The notice issue provided the clearest path to summary judgment, so Aaron and Ryleigh concentrated their argument on the plaintiff’s inability to prove the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the crack. In premises liability cases, Florida law requires plaintiffs to establish that the property owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition.
The plaintiff attempted to meet this burden through testimony that the crack appeared to have existed for “awhile” and did not appear “brand new.” The plaintiff also relied on his speculation that another employee, a porter, “may have been able to see” the crack prior to the incident because he worked in the general area.
Ultimately, the Court held that the testimony about the crack’s age constituted inadmissible lay opinion testimony under Florida Statute § 90.701, as determining how long a crack has existed requires specialized knowledge, skill, experience, or training beyond that of an ordinary witness.
Beyond the admissibility problem, they demonstrated the witness lacked personal knowledge regarding the condition of the crack as it existed at the time of plaintiff’s fall. Since he did not discover the crack until several days later, he could not testify about its condition at the time of the incident. His speculation about what another employee “could have” seen was similarly inadmissible hearsay and lacked personal knowledge foundation.
Judge Maxine Cheesman agreed with the defense position and granted summary judgment. This victory underscores the critical importance of challenging the admissibility of purported summary judgment evidence from a plaintiff in premises liability cases. For property owners and managers, this case reinforces that speculation, inadmissible lay opinions, and testimony lacking personal knowledge cannot establish notice of dangerous conditions. The ruling also confirms that courts will not permit plaintiffs to stack inferences to manufacture fact issues where the record evidence is insufficient to support notice as a matter of law.
Read a copy of the Court’s Order here: https://www.kelleykronenberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Order-Granting-Defendants-Motion-for-Final-S_Aaron-Neifeld.pdf