Marilyn Reynolds v. Belk, Inc., and Village Lake Promenade, LLC d/b/a Lake Square Mall

FIFTH DISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL
S TATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2024-1749
LT Case No. 2022-CA-002086-A
_____________________________
MARILYN R EYNOLDS,
Appellant,
v.
B ELK, INC.,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County.
Danny R. Mosley, Judge.
Sebastian C. Mejia, of Mejia Law Group, PLLC, Orlando, for
Appellant.
Clarence Harold Houston, III, of Carr Allison, Jacksonville, for
Appellee.
December 19, 2025
EDWARDS, J.
Appellant, 	Marilyn 	Reynolds, 	appeals 	the 	summary 	final
judgment entered in favor of Appellee, Belk, Inc., and the related
order denying her motion for rehearing. 	Appellant claims that
while a customer in the Belk store, she tripped over a certain
unsecured, wide-based metal stanchion and sustained injuries. As
summary judgment evidence, Appellee submitted several screen

2
shots, which were still images excerpted from the store’s video.1
The screen shots were the only summary judgment evidence cited
in, attached to, and relied upon in Appellee’s motion.2 The screen
shots depict Appellant’s location relative to the store clerk and
checkout desk, the store clerk assisting Appellant, and other
people and things in the vicinity of where Appellant fell. 	The
screen shots show webbing or rope stretched between the upright
poles 	which 	we 	will 	have 	to 	assume 	are 	connected 	to 	the
stanchions. 	None of the screen shots show the actual unsecured,
wide-based, metal stanchion that caused her to trip, nor do they
show Appellant actually looking at any of the stanchions that were
located behind her.3 Thus, there is no support for the trial court’s
determination and bases for granting summary judgment, that as
a matter of law, i.e., first, any danger presented was open and
obvious 	and 	second, 	that 	the 	stanchion 	was 	not 	inherently
dangerous. 	There is an old saying that a picture is worth a
thousand words; however, here, the screen shot pictures merit only
three words: Reversed and Remanded.
In Muurahainen v. TJX Cos., 397 So. 3d 205, 206–07 (Fla. 5th
DCA 	2024), 	we 	reversed 	summary 	judgment 	in 	favor 	of 	a
defendant store owner where plaintiff tripped over a furniture
1 Appellee apparently provided a copy of the full video to the
trial court the day before the summary judgment hearing and
remarked about what could be seen as various portions of the video
were played during the hearing. The trial court commented on and
appeared to rely upon the video in granting summary judgment.
However, the video was not filed with the lower court nor made a
part of the record on appeal; therefore this Court cannot rely upon
the video or any accounts or descriptions of what is shown in the
video. See Brayton v. Brayton, 46 So. 3d 142, 144 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA
2010).
2 Appellee did not present or rely on any testimony to support
its motion.
3 A copy of one of those screen shots, Exhibit F, is attached to
our opinion, to illustrate that the stanchion over which Appellant
fell is not depicted in that photographic evidence.

3
trolley cart placed by one of the defendant’s employees in or
adjacent to an aisle.4 In the current case, as in Muurahainen, each
plaintiff had given sworn testimony that she had not perceived the
thing over which she tripped prior to falling over it. 	Id. at 206.
The summary judgment evidence in Muurahainen included video
images from two different cameras showing the cart over which
plaintiff tripped, unlike the absence of any images or testimonial
descriptions of the stanchion in the current case. 	However, the
video 	in 	Muurahainen 	did 	not 	duplicate 	plaintiff’s 	visual
perspective of the cart nor did it show exactly how the trip and fall
occurred. 	Id. at 207–08. 	We concluded in Muurahainen, as we
now conclude here, that Appellee’s summary judgment evidence
could not be said to have “conclusively, clearly, and completely
negated Appellant’s sworn testimony,” id. at 207, that she was
unaware of the item over which she tripped until the fall occurred.
Triable issues of fact remain.
Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment granted in
favor of Appellee and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.5
R EVERSED and R EMANDED.
J AY, C.J., and H ARRIS JJ., concur.
4 Muurahainen contains a detailed discussion of the relevant
standard of review, the law applicable to summary judgment
motions, 	landowners’ 	duties 	to 	invitees, 	and 	considerations
relevant to trip and fall cases, which we need not repeat here.
5 We need not discuss or resolve the other issues raised by
Appellant.

4
_____________________________
Not 	final 	until 	disposition 	of 	any 	timely 	and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________

_ r ome AI LEESBURG-1, M2 1/2022 Ty b
mia | Aw} : CT ae
1246223040 }
| \ . .
4 a ~ - 2 —_ s .
* = " ’ co) | — *
> . a -TAgs -~ i e
a 2 WS
= =,
+ &
7 a a	: — =; = -—aa A Se ra Tm
_ - y . an “s f
4 tS, # ~ y
C4 < >. —- -_ rf
‘a 8 SK. wT” t
- + - . 4,
. <a ~ “a
, ‘4 - BY + - =
a \ “ -
} ~ x
oe an
<n Ge4 Vie, Se .
ae-~ *
| :
‘\yy = * 7 >
| a
EXHIBIT
ie F
PAGE # 201
EXHIBIT
PAGE# 201