The Slip and Fall accident lawyer in Miami, Jonathan Perazzo, understands that a Florida slip and fall case can survive without surveillance video. On July 17, 2026, Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal revived one theory of a shopper’s claim against Publix on circumstantial evidence alone: the size of the puddle, a leaking float nearby, and an employee stocking in the immediate vicinity. Circumstantial proof of how long a spill sat can be enough to reach a jury.
The case: Christie v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
In Christie v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., Case No. 5D2025-1184, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal issued its decision on July 17, 2026. The trial court had granted Publix summary judgment on all claims, which ended the case before any jury heard a word of it. On appeal, the Fifth DCA affirmed in part, reversed in part, and sent the case back to the trial court.
What that means is narrow. The shopper did not win her case. She won the right to have a jury decide part of it. The opinion reports no verdict, no settlement, and no recovery. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
She lost on actual knowledge and won on constructive knowledge
This was not a clean win. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment against the shopper on her actual knowledge claim — the theory that the store in fact knew the water was there. That portion of the dismissal stands.
The court reversed only on the constructive knowledge claim. That distinction — actual knowledge versus constructive knowledge — is where these cases usually turn.
What Florida slip and fall law requires you to prove
Florida Statutes § 768.0755 governs falls on a “transitory foreign substance in a business establishment” — water, produce, a spilled drink, tracked-in rain. The statute requires the injured person to prove the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken action to remedy it.
Constructive knowledge is the practical path, and it may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing either:
- (a) the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the business establishment should have known of the condition; or
- (b) the condition occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.
Subsection (a) does not require a timestamp. It requires evidence from which a reasonable person could infer duration.
The evidence the court relied on — none of it was video
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as courts must at the summary judgment stage, the Fifth DCA pointed to the following:
- The puddle was described as a “big pile of water,” roughly “4 feet by 4 feet.”
- A float being used to restock water jugs in the aisle was observed leaking after the fall.
- A witness testified water drops were “all over” the floor and “down the water and soda aisle.”
- A store employee was stocking in the immediate vicinity when the fall happened.
- Another customer had to point out “little spots of water” to that employee.
From that record, the court concluded a jury could reasonably infer the water had been on the floor long enough that ordinary care should have caught it. Its holding was direct: “Here, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Christie, Christie created a jury question on her constructive knowledge claim.”
No inspection log. No surveillance footage. No witness who watched the spill happen and checked a clock.
Important: this ruling is persuasive, not binding, in Miami-Dade and Broward
The Fifth District Court of Appeal does not cover South Florida. Miami-Dade County sits in the Third District and Broward County sits in the Fourth District. A Fifth DCA opinion is persuasive authority in those courts, not binding authority.
A Miami or Fort Lauderdale judge may find the reasoning convincing but is not obligated to follow it. Treat this decision as an illustration of how a constructive knowledge argument gets built — not as a rule that controls your case.
Beyond Publix: the same statute governs Florida retailers generally
Publix is discussed here because it is the named party in a public appellate opinion. But § 768.0755 is not a grocery-store statute. It applies to any “business establishment” in Florida — a Walmart, a Target, a CVS, a restaurant, a gas station, a gym. The question in each setting is the same: could a jury infer the condition lasted long enough that ordinary care should have caught it, or happened with enough regularity to be foreseeable? Hurt in a Publix, contact our Publix Accident Lawyer in Miami now for a FREE Consultation.
What actually preserves a constructive-knowledge case
These cases are often won or lost on details captured in the first few minutes. If you are physically able, or someone with you is:
- Photograph the substance and its size. Put a shoe or a cart wheel in frame for scale. Size and spread are duration evidence.
- Photograph the source. A leaking cooler, a dripping float, a sweating freezer case, a damaged product on a cart — the leaking float was central in Christie.
- Note employees nearby. Where they were, what they were doing, whether anyone had already mentioned the spill to them.
- Get witness names and phone numbers. Other shoppers scatter within minutes and are rarely findable later.
- Report it and ask for the incident report — a copy or the report number, before you leave.
- Move quickly. Store video is routinely overwritten on a short cycle. Once it is gone, it is gone.
The deadline and the fault rule that can still sink a claim
The deadline. Under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(5)(a), most negligence claims arising from incidents on or after March 24, 2023 carry a two-year filing deadline. Miss it and the strength of your evidence stops mattering.
Comparative fault. Under Fla. Stat. § 768.81(6), a person found more than 50 percent at fault for their own harm recovers nothing. This is a real obstacle, not a technicality. A store can argue you were looking at your phone, or that a four-foot puddle was open and obvious and you should have seen it. Even below that threshold, your damages are reduced by your share of fault. Expect the argument to be raised, and expect it to be contested with evidence rather than assertion.
Frequently asked questions
Do I have a case if there is no surveillance video?
Possibly. Christie shows Florida slip and fall law permits constructive knowledge to be proven by circumstantial evidence — the size and spread of the substance, a visible leaking source, employees nearby. Video helps, but its absence is not automatically fatal.
What does “constructive knowledge” actually mean?
It means the business should have known about the hazard even if no one proves it actually did — because the condition sat long enough that ordinary care would have caught it, or because that type of condition occurred with regularity.
How long do I have to file a slip and fall lawsuit in Florida?
For incidents on or after March 24, 2023, § 95.11(5)(a) generally allows two years. Deadlines vary with the facts and with who the defendant is, so confirm yours early.
Does the Christie decision control my Miami case?
No. The Fifth DCA does not cover Miami-Dade or Broward, which fall in the Third and Fourth Districts. The decision is persuasive there, not binding.
What if the store says the fall was my own fault?
Expect that argument. Fault can be apportioned to you, and under § 768.81(6) being more than 50 percent at fault bars recovery entirely. That is why photographs, the source of the spill, and witness names matter.
Talk to a Florida slip and fall lawyer
If you fell in a Florida store and were told there was no video and no way to prove how long the hazard sat there, that conclusion may have been reached too early. A Florida slip and fall lawyer can evaluate whether the circumstantial record supports a constructive knowledge argument and move to preserve store video before it is overwritten.
The Perazzo Law Firm offers a free consultation, and there is no attorney’s fee unless we recover; costs are addressed separately in a written fee agreement. You can learn more about handling your slip-and-fall claim, call 888-PERAZZO, or reach the firm through the contact page for a FREE Consultation. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Miami Personal Injury Attorney advertising. The Perazzo Law Firm, North Miami Beach, Florida. This article is general information about Florida law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. No outcome is guaranteed or predicted. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Court decisions discussed here describe procedural rulings only and do not reflect any recovery by any party.