It is the most ordinary errand there is. A grocery run, a stop at a big-box store, a quick trip down a tile aisle on a rainy day. Then your foot finds a spill you never saw, and an ordinary errand turns into an emergency room visit and a stack of bills.
The store has done this before. Its insurer handles these falls every week and will tell you the store had no way to know about the spill, or that the fall was your fault. The store is betting you will take a small number to make the stress stop. We are built to show what your case is worth and to make the store answer for a hazard it should have caught.
How the notice burden really works in a store
A store is not automatically responsible every time someone falls, and the reason is a specific statute. Under Fla. Stat. 768.0755, a customer who slips on a transitory substance, a puddle, a dropped grape, or a leaking cooler, has to show the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the substance and should have addressed it. Actual knowledge means someone at the store knew, an employee who saw the spill or caused it. Constructive knowledge is proven with circumstantial evidence in one of two ways, that the substance was on the floor long enough that a reasonable business would have found and cleaned it, or that the condition happened with such regularity that it was foreseeable, like a produce aisle or a freezer case that leaks again and again. This is the hardest burden in premises law, because a spill by definition had to exist long enough to be found. For years the rule was friendlier to injured customers under Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2001), where the Florida Supreme Court shifted the burden to the store, and the Legislature answered that decision with the current statute. The statute reaches any “business establishment,” which the courts have defined broadly as a place where business is conducted, goods are stored or processed, or services are rendered (Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Santos, 118 So. 3d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)).
| Path | What it shows |
|---|---|
| Duration | The substance was on the floor long enough that a careful store would have found and cleaned it. A puddle that is dirty, tracked through, or dried at the edges helps prove time passed. |
| Regularity | The same kind of hazard happened often enough at that store that it should have been expected and guarded against, which is where prior incidents come in. |
Fla. Stat. 768.0755 also preserves the common-law duty of care a business owes on its premises.
Slip and fall cases inside retail and grocery stores are squarely the premises work I focus on, and I am a member of the National Association of Premises Liability Attorneys with a heavy trial background in them. I represent injured people, not insurance companies. I learned to try cases as a public defender in the courtroom, where I handled numerous trials and cross-examined witnesses constantly, and I use that same experience to hold a store to its duty to keep its aisles safe. When an insurer knows I am ready to put the case before a jury, that is often what moves it to pay fair value, and I am ready. You work with me directly, from the first call through trial. Learn more about my background.
How the duration gets proven, and the inspection clock
Because so many of these cases turn on how long the hazard sat, the law lets a jury infer duration from circumstantial evidence, and the store’s own inspection interval is often the key. Footprints or cart tracks through a puddle, dirt or debris worked into the spill, or dried and darkened edges can all show a substance was there long enough to be discovered. The reasonableness of the time between inspections is measured against the size, nature, and inherent risks of the area, so a short gap can support an inference of negligence in a small store filled with products that spill and break, while a longer interval may be reasonable across a large open space (McCarthy v. Broward College, 164 So. 3d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)). Evidence that no inspection happened during a meaningful window before the fall can itself warrant the inference that a reasonable inspection would have caught the hazard. A plaintiff can also prove that a store should have known of a danger with evidence of prior similar accidents at the same place (Nance v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)), which turns a recurring hazard into foreseeable knowledge.
The records a store hopes you never read
The proof of what a store knew lives in the store’s own records, and those records have a short life. Surveillance video is the single most important piece, and many systems overwrite in a matter of days to a few weeks, so a preservation demand cannot wait for a signed contract. Beyond the video, a store generates sweep logs and inspection sheets meant to show an employee walked the aisle on a schedule, cleanup and incident reports, and prior-incident histories for the same location or the same recurring hazard. Those documents cut both ways, and a sweep log with a gap in it, or one filled in after the fall, can be stronger than any witness. The notice statute also does not erase the store’s ordinary duties, because Fla. Stat. 768.0755(2) preserves the common-law duty of care, so a negligent maintenance or failure-to-inspect theory can run alongside the notice question. The distance between a company that has a floor-safety policy and a company that follows it is where these cases are won, and getting the video and the logs before they are gone is the first move rather than the last.
The deadline
For a premises incident on or after March 24, 2023, Florida gives you two years to file suit, under Fla. Stat. 95.11(5)(a). That window is shorter than it used to be, and the proof that wins these cases moves faster than the legal clock, so a demand to preserve records and footage should go out early.
A slip and fall at a store is won or lost on the records, the video, the sweep logs, and the incident history, and getting to them before they are overwritten is where I start. I came up as a public defender and one of a small number of Florida attorneys trained as a forensic lawyer-scientist, so taking apart records other people accept at face value is what I do. I bring that to a store’s floor-safety paper, the log with a gap in it and the policy the company wrote and did not follow. I represent injured customers, not the chain or its insurer, and I hold the store to the duty it owed the people it invited through its doors.
Common Questions
What do I have to prove if I fell in a store?
Under Fla. Stat. 768.0755, you have to show the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have fixed it. Constructive knowledge comes from how long the hazard was on the floor or from evidence that the same kind of hazard happened with regularity at that store.
Why do sweep logs and inspection records matter so much?
They show whether the store had a routine for catching hazards and whether it followed that routine. A sweep sheet that is blank, filled in after the fact, or missing, or an inspection interval too long to catch the spill, helps prove the store should have found and cleaned the hazard before you fell.
Can I use other falls at the same store or chain?
Often, yes. Florida permits discovery of prior similar incidents, both at the specific location and company-wide, because a pattern of the same kind of hazard helps show the store should have expected it and guarded against it. That history sits in the store's own records.
The store says I wasn't watching where I was going. Does that defeat my claim?
Not by itself. Your own share of fault reduces what you recover, and a person found more than fifty percent at fault recovers nothing under Fla. Stat. 768.81, but the store's duty to keep its floors reasonably safe still applies. The 'you weren't looking' argument is really a fight over the fault percentage.
How long do I have to file?
Generally two years from the date you were hurt, under Fla. Stat. 95.11(5)(a), for falls on or after March 24, 2023. Store video often overwrites within days, so the sooner a preservation demand goes out, the better.
Related: Slip and fall cases, Premises liability overview, Personal injury overview, and About Rory Safir.
Do I have to prove how long the spill was on the floor?
Usually yes, in one of two ways. Under Fla. Stat. 768.0755 you can show the substance was there long enough that a reasonable store would have found and cleaned it, which often comes from video, footprints or dried edges in the spill, and the store’s sweep logs, or you can show the condition happened with enough regularity that the store should have expected it, like a cooler or a display that leaks over and over. If an employee caused the spill or knew about it, that is actual knowledge and you do not need to prove duration at all.
This page is general information about Florida premises liability law, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The governing authorities include Fla. Stat. 768.0755 (transitory foreign substances in a business), 768.81 (comparative fault), and 95.11(5)(a) (two-year limitations). Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements.
