84-Year-Old Man Sues Waffle House, Says Window Ads Made Him Trip

Edward Bowlds went to Waffle House for breakfast. He ended up in a lawsuit instead.

The 84-year-old Florida man is suing Waffle House and franchisee East Coast Waffles after allegedly tripping over a curb outside a Bartow, Florida location on April 17, 2025. His complaint, filed in April, lays out an argument that's more legally interesting than it might first appear — that the restaurant's own window advertising created the conditions for his fall.

The lawsuit claims Bowlds was walking from the parking lot toward the entrance when the advertisements displayed in the Waffle House windows caught his attention. While looking at the signs, he didn't notice the curb in front of him, tripped, and fell — suffering what the complaint describes as "severe and permanent injuries."

But it's not just the distraction he's going after. The complaint goes further, arguing the curb itself was "abnormally high," poorly maintained, and the same color as the surrounding parking lot — effectively invisible to someone approaching on foot. No warning paint. No contrasting color. Just a curb that blended into the pavement.

His wife Dorothy Bowlds is also named as a plaintiff, claiming loss of companionship and additional medical expenses as a result of her husband's injuries. Together they're seeking more than $50,000 in damages plus attorneys' fees, and they've demanded a jury trial.

Waffle House isn't having it. The company denied the claims in its April 15 answer, saying the premises are "maintained in a reasonably safe condition" and that the curb condition was "open and obvious" — meaning Bowlds should have seen it himself. The company also argued that any damages were the result of Bowlds' own failure to watch where he was going, and that his medical bill demands are "excessive" and not connected to the fall.

The Legal Argument Is Actually Interesting

At first glance this reads like a classic slip-and-fall lawsuit. But the window advertising angle adds a layer that premises liability attorneys actually deal with more than people realize.

The core argument is that Waffle House created two problems simultaneously — a hazard on the ground and a visual distraction at eye level — and that the combination of the two makes the restaurant more responsible than if either existed alone. The complaint specifically argues that the advertisements were "clearly meant to attract the attention of customers" and that their "size, placement, and orientation" diverted people's attention precisely at the point where they needed to be looking at the ground.

Florida premises liability law requires property owners to maintain safe conditions and to warn visitors about hazards that aren't readily apparent. Waffle House's defense — that the curb was "open and obvious" — is a standard and often effective legal shield. But that defense gets more complicated when the plaintiff can point to something the property owner deliberately placed in the customer's line of sight at the moment the hazard needed to be noticed.

The case essentially asks a jury to decide whether a business can be held responsible not just for a physical hazard but for the distraction it intentionally created alongside it. For an 84-year-old walking across a parking lot, that question is a little less abstract than it sounds.

No trial date has been set. Waffle House did not respond to requests for comment.

Curious for more stories that keep you informed and entertained? From the latest headlines to everyday insights, YourLifeBuzz has more to explore. Dive into what’s next.