Switch to ADA Accessible Theme Close Menu
Florida Personal Injury Lawyers
$3,830,000

Catastrophic motorcycle accident resulted in a jury verdict.

$1,748,000

Auto accident, multi-car crash

$1,035,000

Auto accident involving defective airbag

$600,000

Death resulting from hospital turning away patient

$550,000

Auto accident involving tractor trailer

$345,000

Auto accident involving a work vehicle

$340,000

Slip and fall at a hotel bathroom

$115,000

Auto accident involving pedestrian. $115,000 in litigation instead of $15k presuit offer

Call: 844-200-0000
Free Initial Consultation
Do you opt in to being contacted via SMS texting or phone call?
 
protected by reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms

No Expectation of Privacy in Slip and Fall Case

Earlier this year, a Florida appeals court ordered that a plaintiff must turn over photos that she deleted from her private Facebook page in a slip and fall premises liability case. The court ruled that social media users should not expect that the information that they post on those websites to remain private. The ruling has the potential to substantially affect future slip and fall cases that are filed in the state.

Facts of the Case

In the case of Maria F. Nucci and Henry Leon v. Target Corp., American Building Inc., and First Choice Building Maintenance, Inc., Maria Nucci went to a Target store on February 4, 2010. While there, she slipped and fell on a foreign substance on the floor of the store. She subsequently sued the company for premises liability, claiming that as a result of the slip and fall she had experienced the following:

  • Suffered bodily injury;
  • Experienced pain from the injury;
  • Incurred medical, hospital, and nursing expenses, suffered physical handicap;
  • Suffered emotional pain and suffering;
  • Lost earnings;
  • Lost the ability to earn money;
  • Lost or suffered a diminution of ability to enjoy her life;
  • Suffered aggravation of preexisting injuries;
  • Suffered permanent or continuing injuries; and
  • Will continue to suffer the losses and impairment in the future.

Target took Ms. Nucci’s deposition on September 4, 2013. Before the deposition, Target looked at her Facebook page and saw that she had 1,285 photos and asked during the deposition for some of the photographs that she had posted. Ms. Nucci declined and two days later Target noticed that she only had 1,249 photographs on the social media page. Target moved to compel inspection of her Facebook page and requested that Ms. Nucci not destroy any other information on her social media websites.

Ms. Nucci countered with the argument that her Facebook page was on a privacy setting that prevented the general public from seeing her account, and as a result she had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding her Facebook information. In addition, she claimed that Target was on a fishing expedition for evidence that was overbroad in its request for information.

Motion to Compel

At the hearing for the motion to compel, Target showed the court surveillance footage of Ms. Nucci that had her carrying two large purses at once as well as two large jugs of water on another occasion. Target argued that because she put her physical condition at issue, the relevancy of the Facebook photos outweighed her right to privacy. Furthermore, the company argued that there is no constitutional right to privacy for Facebook. The court denied Target’s motion because the request was “vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.”

As a result, Target filed a narrower, more focused discovery request. It gave Ms. Nucci a set of four interrogatories and nine items in a request to produce. Ms. Nucci rejected the interrogatories on the grounds of privacy, that the items were not readily accessible, and relevance. She denied the requests to produce based on the same grounds as well as that they were overbroad, brought solely to harass, “over[ly] burdensome,” “unduly burdensome,” and unduly vague.

At the trial court, Target moved to disallow Ms. Nucci’s objections and conceded that the requests for production should be limited to photographs. The trial court granted Target’s motion in part and denied it in part. It compelled Ms. Nucci to identify all social media websites that she has registered, list all phone numbers and phones, and to provide photographs from her social media websites and phones from two years prior to the accident to the present. Ms. Nucci appealed the trial court’s ruling.

Ruling of the Court

The appellate court ruled in favor of Target on the premise that Ms. Nucci was seeking damages based on the quality of life before and after her accident, and as a result, Target is required to examine her quality of life through testimony and other evidence. “The photographs sought here are thus powerfully relevant to the damage issues in the lawsuit.”

In addition, the court reasoned that the Facebook photographs in this case were particularly relevant because “the post-accident surveillance videos of Nucci suggest that her injury claims are suspect and that she may not be an accurate report of her pre-accident life or of the quality of her life since then.” Therefore, her testimony alone would not be enough to truthfully establish the quality of her life pre- and post-accident.

In regards to Ms. Nucci’s argument that the request violated her right to privacy because of the settings on her Facebook page, the court of appeals found that “the relevance of the photographs overwhelms Nucci’s minimal privacy interest in them.” Citing a previous Florida case, the Fourth District Court stated that “generally, the photographs posted on a social networking site are neither privileged nor protected by any right of privacy, regardless of any privacy settings that the user may have established.”

The reasoning of the court was that in creating a social media webpage, the user acknowledges that their personal information will be shared with others. As a result, the expectation that any information put onto the webpage is private is unreasonable. Therefore, the Court of Appeals dismissed Ms. Nucci’s arguments to prevent the interrogatories and requests to produce from Target. The company was granted its requests for Ms. Nucci’s photographs from Facebook, other social media websites, and her phones.

Contact a Florida Slip and Fall Attorney Now

This case is a strong example of how social media can play a role in personal injury claims. If you have questions regarding how this case may affect your claims or have other questions regarding a slip and fall accident that occurred in Orlando, Tampa, Fort Myers, Jacksonville, or West Palm Beach, let the experienced slip and fall accident attorneys at The Pendas Law Firm help. Call the office or contact us today for a free and confidential consultation of your claims.

Read What Others Have To Say About Us

  • “I can’t express how much I appreciate this law firm. I had the honor to deal with attorney Daniel. He kept me updated on my case. I couldn’t ask for a better law firm. Daniel fought for me til the end and got me what I deserved. Thanks Daniel and your team for always being there to answer any of my questions. If I ever need a law firm again...”

    Terry Mcphillips
  • “Speedy & superb handling of clients & cases, kind & caring. Highly recommended professionals. They made everything very easy for us, were outgoing & polite. I would call them again if ever in need, rather than call the larger firms that need to advertise & brag about winnings…Pendas was a pleasant & more personal approach instead of...”

    Joseph Kestell
  • “Wow I called Pendas Law Firm the other day at their main intake line it was around 11 o’clock at night and I’ve got this wonderful representative his name was Jeffrey Alvarez. This guy was very professional and his compassion was out of this world I don’t know what I would do if I could not have got a hold of him...”

    Luis Sanchez
  • “Thank you for helping us in our time of need. This firm handled my father’s workers comp case, and helped us with every question we had, and we had a plenty. Thankful for the entire legal team!”

    Enilno Resu
  • “I just concluded a case with attorney Michael Sanchez and paralegal Camilo Lopez. I can only say they are exceptional. The customer service is unique, they have been battling alongside me since day 1. They are not only courteous and professional, but they also are amazing at their job. Thanks to them I got a great deal. I am glad I decided to use their services...”

    Israel Garcia
  • “Their attorneys are absolutely someone you want handling your car accident claim. They communicated with us promptly and thoroughly. I was very happy with our recovery. Already recommended them to others in the same circumstances, their staff speaks Spanish and you feel like in family.”

    Ian Brito
  • “Very Professional law firm. They explained to you every detail what to do according to the laws (worker’s compensation). Mr. Danilo Cruz is the best Lawyer and his team. They are very kind, friendly, responsible, I love this firm. They fight for their clients. AwesomeTeam!”

    Lau Rod