The Miami slip & fall accident lawyer, Jonathan Perazzo, knows that winning a slip-and-fall lawsuit against a Florida store almost never comes down to whether you fell — it comes down to proving the store knew, or should have known, about the hazard in time to fix it. Fla. Stat. § 768.0755(1) sets that standard. A Fifth District Court of Appeal ruling issued July 17, 2026, in Christie v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. shows exactly what kind of evidence gets that question in front of a jury.
What Florida Law Requires: Fla. Stat. § 768.0755
Under Fla. Stat. § 768.0755(1), a person hurt by a “transitory foreign substance” inside a business — a puddle, a spill, a tracked-in wet patch — must prove more than that the substance was there. The store must have had actual knowledge or constructive knowledge of the hazard and should have acted to remove it.
Actual knowledge means an employee saw the spill or was told and did nothing. Constructive knowledge — the theory most cases turn on — is proven with circumstantial evidence that the condition existed long enough, or recurred often enough, that ordinary care should have caught it. Without one of those showings, a store generally isn’t liable just because someone fell on its floor. That’s the hurdle a Florida premises liability lawyer spends the pre-suit investigation building evidence toward.
Christie v. Publix: What the Fifth DCA Decided
Deana Christie slipped and fell inside a Publix store and sued under both the actual-knowledge and constructive-knowledge theories of § 768.0755(1). The trial court granted summary judgment for Publix on both theories, ending the case before it reached a jury.
The Fifth DCA affirmed on the actual-knowledge claim — there wasn’t enough evidence a Publix employee saw or was told about the puddle. But it reversed and remanded on the constructive-knowledge claim, sending that one theory back for a jury to decide, according to the court’s written opinion.
That is not a verdict, settlement, or dollar recovery of any kind — one theory of the case simply survives summary judgment and will now be tried. Past results, including appellate rulings like this one, do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.
The Fifth DCA’s territory doesn’t reach Miami-Dade County (Third DCA), so this opinion doesn’t bind Miami courts directly. What it does is interpret § 768.0755 — a statute that applies statewide — and illustrate the circumstantial evidence Florida courts generally look for on a constructive-knowledge claim.
The Evidence That Got Christie’s Claim to a Jury
Three facts — each taken from the court’s opinion — were together enough for the Fifth DCA to find a jury could conclude Publix should have discovered and addressed the hazard:
- Size of the puddle. Roughly four feet by four feet — not a small drip easy to miss on a routine walk-through.
- An identifiable source. The water came from a leaking restocking float an employee was using to restock jugs, with droplets visible down the aisle.
- Employee proximity. A Publix employee, identified in the opinion as Clatterbuck, was stocking shelves in the immediate area — even though the employee said they didn’t notice the puddle.
No single fact would necessarily carry the claim alone. It was the combination — size, source, and proximity — that the court found sufficient to let a jury decide.
What Constructive-Knowledge Evidence Looks Like
The Christie facts map onto the categories of evidence that come up in most Florida retail slip-and-fall investigations:
- Time on the floor. Video, where it exists, is the clearest way to show dwell time; without it, footprints or a spill’s spread pattern can support an inference.
- Source of the hazard. A spill with an identifiable, ongoing source supports a foreseeable, discoverable risk created by the store’s own operations.
- Employee proximity. Staff working near the hazard doesn’t prove they saw it, but it undercuts the claim that no reasonable inspection could have caught it.
- Inspection and cleaning logs. Regular logs can help the store’s defense; gaps or missed inspections can support constructive knowledge instead.
- Video evidence. Often the strongest evidence on either side — and retention windows are short, which is why prompt reporting matters.
Publix, Walmart, CVS, Target: The Same Standard Applies
Christie v. Publix names Publix because that’s where the fall happened, but § 768.0755(1) is not Publix-specific. The same actual-versus-constructive-knowledge framework applies to a fall at Walmart, CVS, Target, or any other Florida retailer. What matters is the same in every case: how the hazard got there, how long it sat, and whether the store’s own operations or staffing put it in a position to catch it.
What to Do If You Fall in a Florida Store
Because constructive knowledge is proven with circumstantial evidence, what happens in the minutes and days after a fall often determines whether that evidence still exists later.
- Report the fall to management and ask for an incident report before you leave.
- Photograph the hazard — the puddle, spill, or debris — plus the surrounding area, any visible source, and the aisle layout.
- Get witness contact information from other customers and any nearby employees.
- Seek medical care even if the injury seems minor; a contemporaneous record links the fall to the injury before symptoms fade.
- Don’t give a recorded statement to the store’s insurance adjuster without speaking to an attorney first — adjusters ask questions that can create gaps used against a claim later.
Surveillance footage is often overwritten on a short cycle. A written preservation request sent early is one of the first steps a Florida attorney handling a store slip-and-fall claim typically takes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I have to prove the store knew about the hazard to win a slip-and-fall case in Florida?
Yes. Fla. Stat. § 768.0755(1) requires proof of actual or constructive knowledge — that the hazard existed long enough, or recurred regularly enough, that ordinary care should have caught it.
Does the Christie v. Publix ruling mean the plaintiff won her case?
No. The Fifth DCA sent the constructive-knowledge claim back for a jury to decide but affirmed judgment against the plaintiff on the actual-knowledge claim. No verdict, settlement, or damages award has been reported.
Does this ruling apply to a slip-and-fall in Miami?
The Fifth DCA’s ruling binds only its own district, which doesn’t include Miami-Dade County (Third DCA). The statute it interprets applies statewide, but the opinion itself isn’t binding on Miami-Dade courts.
What should I do first if I fall in a store like Publix, Walmart, or Target?
Report the fall to management, photograph the hazard and surroundings, collect witness information, and get medical care promptly. Avoid a recorded statement to the store’s insurer before speaking with an attorney.
Talk to a Florida Premises Liability Attorney
Constructive-knowledge claims are won or lost on evidence gathered in the days after a fall, before video is overwritten and memories fade. If you were hurt in a fall at a Florida store, The Perazzo Law Firm offers a free case evaluation. Call 888-PERAZZO ((888) 737-2996) or Contact Us to discuss what happened.
Miami personal injury accident Attorney Advertising. The Perazzo Law Firm, North Miami Beach, Florida. This article is general information about Florida law, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results, including the outcome of any case discussed above, do not guarantee a similar outcome in your case.