Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC

Constitutional Issues

Whether the trial court erred in determining the statute of limitations for the plaintiff's FDUTPA claim.Whether the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed as time-barred.

Rule Statements

"The statute of limitations for a claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act is four years."

"A cause of action accrues when the alleged deceptive act or practice is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered by the consumer."

"When a defendant seeks summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, the defendant bears the burden of proving that the limitations period has expired."

Remedies

Reversal of the trial court's summary judgment.Remand for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion, potentially including a trial on the merits if factual disputes remain regarding the accrual of the cause of action.

Q: What is Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC about?

Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC is a case decided by Florida District Court of Appeal on March 11, 2026.

Q: What court decided Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC?

Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC was decided by the Florida District Court of Appeal, which is part of the FL state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC decided?

Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC was decided on March 11, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC?

The citation for Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the case name and what does it concern?

The case is Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC. It concerns a slip and fall incident where the plaintiff, Mayer, sued the defendant, Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC, for injuries sustained on a wet hotel lobby floor. The core issue is whether the defendant had sufficient notice of the dangerous condition.

Q: Who were the parties involved in Mayer v. Yawn?

The parties were the plaintiff, Mayer, who sustained injuries from a slip and fall, and the defendant, Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC, the owner of the hotel where the incident occurred. Mayer sued Yawn for damages resulting from the fall.

Q: Where did the incident in Mayer v. Yawn take place?

The incident occurred in the hotel lobby of the defendant, Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC. The plaintiff, Mayer, slipped and fell on a wet floor in this lobby.

Q: When was the appellate court's decision in Mayer v. Yawn issued?

While the exact date of the appellate court's decision is not provided in the summary, the case reached the Florida District Court of Appeal, indicating a decision was made after the trial court's ruling on summary judgment.

Q: What was the nature of the dispute in Mayer v. Yawn?

The dispute centered on whether the defendant, Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC, had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition – a wet floor – in its hotel lobby. The plaintiff, Mayer, alleged negligence after slipping and falling on this wet floor.

Q: Is Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC published?

Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What topics does Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC cover?

Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC covers the following legal topics: Statute of Limitations, Breach of Contract, Continuing Violation Doctrine, Accrual of Cause of Action, Summary Judgment.

Q: What was the ruling in Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC?

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC. Key holdings: The appellate court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding whether the defendant had actual notice of the wet floor, as a hotel employee was seen mopping the area shortly before the fall.; The court also held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding constructive notice, as the wet condition had allegedly existed for a sufficient length of time that the defendant should have discovered it through reasonable inspection.; The appellate court found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrated genuine issues of material fact.; The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the plaintiff to present their case to a jury..

Q: Why is Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC important?

Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC has an impact score of 30/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision reinforces that premises liability cases involving slip and falls often hinge on the question of notice, which is typically a question of fact for a jury. It serves as a reminder to property owners to maintain diligent inspection and cleaning protocols to avoid liability.

Q: What precedent does Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC set?

Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC established the following key holdings: (1) The appellate court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding whether the defendant had actual notice of the wet floor, as a hotel employee was seen mopping the area shortly before the fall. (2) The court also held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding constructive notice, as the wet condition had allegedly existed for a sufficient length of time that the defendant should have discovered it through reasonable inspection. (3) The appellate court found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrated genuine issues of material fact. (4) The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the plaintiff to present their case to a jury.

Q: What are the key holdings in Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC?

1. The appellate court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding whether the defendant had actual notice of the wet floor, as a hotel employee was seen mopping the area shortly before the fall. 2. The court also held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding constructive notice, as the wet condition had allegedly existed for a sufficient length of time that the defendant should have discovered it through reasonable inspection. 3. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrated genuine issues of material fact. 4. The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the plaintiff to present their case to a jury.

Q: What cases are related to Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC?

Precedent cases cited or related to Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC: Owens v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2001); Slawson v. Foremost Ins. Co., 766 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Q: What legal standard did the appellate court apply in Mayer v. Yawn?

The appellate court applied the standard for summary judgment, which requires determining if there is a genuine issue of material fact. The court found that the plaintiff's evidence regarding notice of the wet floor was sufficient to preclude summary judgment, meaning a jury should decide the issue.

Q: What is 'notice' in the context of a slip and fall case like Mayer v. Yawn?

In slip and fall cases, 'notice' refers to whether the property owner knew or should have known about a dangerous condition. This can be 'actual notice' (direct knowledge) or 'constructive notice' (knowledge the owner should have had through reasonable care, such as seeing a spill that has been present for a while).

Q: What type of notice did the plaintiff in Mayer v. Yawn argue the defendant had?

The plaintiff, Mayer, argued that the defendant, Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC, had either actual or constructive notice of the wet floor. This means Mayer contended the hotel either knew the floor was wet or should have known through reasonable inspection and maintenance.

Q: What does 'genuine issue of material fact' mean in Mayer v. Yawn?

A 'genuine issue of material fact' means there is a real dispute over facts that are important to the outcome of the case. In Mayer v. Yawn, the appellate court found such an issue existed regarding the defendant's notice of the wet floor, preventing the case from being decided solely on legal arguments without a trial.

Q: What is the burden of proof for the plaintiff in a slip and fall case like Mayer v. Yawn?

The plaintiff, Mayer, had the burden to prove that the defendant, Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC, was negligent. This includes demonstrating that the defendant had notice of the dangerous condition (the wet floor), that the condition caused the plaintiff's injuries, and that the plaintiff suffered damages.

Q: What is 'summary judgment' and why was it relevant in Mayer v. Yawn?

Summary judgment is a decision by a court that resolves a lawsuit without a full trial. It is granted when there are no disputed material facts and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In Mayer v. Yawn, the trial court granted it to the defendant, but the appellate court found it was improperly granted.

Q: What kind of evidence might create a jury question about notice in a slip and fall case?

Evidence that could create a jury question includes testimony about how long the condition existed, whether employees were aware of it, whether there were warning signs, or if the condition was obvious and should have been seen by staff during routine checks. The appellate court in Mayer v. Yawn found such evidence existed.

Q: Does Mayer v. Yawn change the law on premises liability?

While not necessarily changing the fundamental law, Mayer v. Yawn clarifies how existing premises liability principles, particularly regarding notice, are applied. It emphasizes that constructive notice can be a viable basis for a claim, preventing summary dismissal in certain circumstances.

Q: What specific evidence did Mayer present to argue for notice in Mayer v. Yawn?

The summary does not detail the specific evidence presented by Mayer. However, it states that Mayer presented 'sufficient evidence' to create a jury question on notice, implying evidence related to the duration of the wetness, visibility of the spill, or hotel staff actions or inactions.

Q: How does Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC affect me?

This decision reinforces that premises liability cases involving slip and falls often hinge on the question of notice, which is typically a question of fact for a jury. It serves as a reminder to property owners to maintain diligent inspection and cleaning protocols to avoid liability. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What is the practical impact of the Mayer v. Yawn decision for businesses?

For businesses like hotels, the decision reinforces the importance of having robust inspection and cleaning protocols. It suggests that simply not having direct knowledge of a spill might not be enough to avoid liability if the condition existed long enough that it should have been discovered.

Q: How does Mayer v. Yawn affect individuals who slip and fall on business property?

This decision potentially makes it easier for individuals injured in slip and fall incidents to pursue claims against property owners. It highlights that a plaintiff can present evidence to a jury about constructive notice, even without proof of direct knowledge by the business.

Q: What compliance measures should businesses consider after Mayer v. Yawn?

Businesses should review and potentially enhance their regular inspection schedules for common areas like lobbies, implement clear procedures for documenting spills and cleaning, and ensure staff are trained to identify and address potential hazards promptly to mitigate liability.

Q: What are the potential financial implications for businesses following Mayer v. Yawn?

Businesses may face increased litigation risk and potential liability for damages if they cannot demonstrate adequate preventative measures. This could lead to higher insurance premiums or direct costs associated with defending lawsuits and paying settlements or judgments.

Q: How does this case fit into the broader legal landscape of slip and fall litigation?

Mayer v. Yawn contributes to the body of case law defining the scope of a business's duty to maintain safe premises. It illustrates the judicial balancing act between protecting businesses from frivolous lawsuits and ensuring injured individuals have a fair opportunity to seek redress.

Q: What legal principles governed premises liability before Mayer v. Yawn?

Before Mayer v. Yawn, premises liability law generally required plaintiffs to prove that the owner had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition. The key difference in application often lies in what evidence is deemed sufficient to establish constructive notice, which this case helps to illustrate.

Q: Could Mayer v. Yawn be considered a landmark case for slip and fall claims?

Mayer v. Yawn is unlikely to be considered a landmark case that fundamentally alters the law. However, it serves as an important reminder and clarification for Florida courts and businesses regarding the standards for proving constructive notice in premises liability cases.

Q: What was the docket number in Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC?

The docket number for Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC is 1D2024-2915. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Mayer v. Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: What was the trial court's ruling in Mayer v. Yawn?

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Yawn, the Resort Collection, LLC. This ruling was based on the trial court's finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendant had notice of the wet floor.

Q: What did the appellate court decide in Mayer v. Yawn?

The appellate court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. It held that the plaintiff, Mayer, had presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding the defendant's actual or constructive notice of the wet floor.

Q: How did the plaintiff get the case to the appellate court in Mayer v. Yawn?

The plaintiff, Mayer, appealed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant. An appeal allows a higher court to review the trial court's legal rulings for errors.

Q: What happens next after the appellate court reversed the summary judgment in Mayer v. Yawn?

Typically, when an appellate court reverses a grant of summary judgment, the case is sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. This usually means the case will proceed to trial where a jury can hear the evidence and decide the disputed issues of fact, including notice and liability.