Below is a sample of some of the slip and fall cases Alan Sackrin has settled and won against Publix by filing a lawsuit or pre-suit settlement.
See More of Alan Sackrin's Verdicts and Settlements
Quick Publix Facts:
According to the Clerk of the Court's website, the number of negligence cases filed against Publix per year in Broward County, Florida, with almost all of the lawsuits being premises liability cases, is:
Common Causes of Publix Slip and Falls
The most frequent causes of slip and fall accidents at Publix include:
How Do You Prove a Slip and Fall Claim Against Publix?
Being able to show how publix is at fault for a slip and fall is not easy to do. This is especially true when they do not like to share their survelliance video or maintenance log books.
Read (From Our Blog): Grocery Store Slip and Fall – How to Prove Your Claim
What Compensation Can You Recover For Your Slip and Fall Injuries?
You may be able to recover damages for:
Common Injuries Resulting From a Slip and Fall
Florida Law On Slip and Falls – Transitory Substances
Under Florida statute 768.0755, Publix has a legal duty to warn its patrons that there is a dangerous condition on the floor by doing something like displaying a “wet floor” sign.
However, the sign is only required if the business knew or should have known of the wet floor surface.
Florida Publix Case Law:
Below are appellate cases involving Publix and slip and falls in their grocery stores. We believe analyzing these cases gives us a view into how Publix approaches slip and fall cases.
Woman slipped and fell in Publix on a discolored piece of banana. Judgment was entered in favor of Publix for failure to present evidence that Publix had any “constructive knowledge” of the banana being on the floor. Upon appeal, verdict was affirmed (plaintiff would have had to prove how long the banana had been on the floor).
CATEGORY: constructive knowledge
Woman slipped and fell on a piece of cookie that was on the floor. Plaintiff alleged negligent failure of Publix to maintain the floors of its supermarket in a reasonably safe condition. To recover for injuries incurred in a slip and fall case, the plaintiff must generally prove that the owner of the premises had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The trial court ruled in favor of Publix. Upon appeal, verdict was affirmed and Publix was not found negligent for the way they operate their cookie program (free cookies for children under 12).
CATEGORY: constructive notice
A woman, while shopping at Publix, slipped and fell on a piece of cake which had fallen from a demonstration table. Plaintiff alleged that Publix created the dangerous condition and negligently maintained its premises. No evidence of how long cake had been on floor or who dropped it. Verdict was entered in favor of Plaintiff, however was reversed based on her failure to prove how long cake had been on floor and whether this condition happened so frequently that Publix should have had knowledge of it.
CATEGORY: constructive notice
A woman slipped and fell while shopping in Publix. She filed suit and requested production of the store security video of her slip and fall. Publix did not turn over the video and plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Publix responded that it would produce the requested video following her deposition. Plaintiff sought certiorari review of the order compelling her deposition prior to the production of a store security video of the slip and fall. Her petition was denied; Court retains the discretion to control the timing of discovery, even though the tapes are not considered work product.
CATEGORY: discovery timing
A man hit his head on the door handle of a refrigerator in Publix. He received nine sutures in his forehead to close the wound. Verdict was in Plaintiff’s favor and he was awarded $ for past medical expenses, but gave him nothing for future medical expenses, past or future lost wages, or past or future non-economic damages. The trial court determined that Worley should have received something for past non-economic damages in light of the jury finding that he was entitled to past medical expenses and that Publix was 100% at fault. The court awarded an additur of $20,000 or alternatively a new trial. Worley elected a new trial. Publix appealed the Order granting a new trial and upon appeal, the order of the trial court was affirmed and the matter was remanded for a new trial on past non-economic damages.
CATEGORY: future medical expenses, past or future lost wages, past or future economic damages.
A woman fell in Publix. Summary Judgment was awarded to Publix based on a release by Plaintiff in exchange for payment of medical bills. Plaintiff claimed release was obtained by fraud or mistake on her part (English is not her first language and she claimed to have misunderstood the receipt she was given for the payment). She testified that she was told to go to Publix to receive reimbursement for medical bills and to sign a receipt for same. Summary Judgment was reversed and case was remanded for new trial.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. July 11, 2007 959 So.2d 1274 2007 WL 1988960
Johnson was stopped and detained by Publix security personnel on suspicion of shoplifting. Publix suggested he participate in a civil theft recovery program which he declined and they charged him with theft. Johnson was found not guilty. He then filed suit against Publix for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. During the discovery process Johnson sought correspondence from Publix attorneys re: their civil theft recovery program. Publix sought protection from this discovery and it was denied. Publix claimed work-product privilege and asserted the privacy rights on non-parties (others involved in civil theft program). The case was remanded for further proceedings because the lower court failed to require Johnson to sufficiently show necessity re: work-product privilege and relevance re: privacy rights. The Order denying protection from discovery was quashed.
CATEGORY: DISCOVERY: WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, NECESSITY
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. July 25, 2012 92 So.3d 922 2012 WL 3023216
Anderson slipped and fell while in Publix and filed suit thereafter. During discovery Plaintiff sought the store’s reports regarding the incident. Publix asserted work-product privilege and identified two documents in its privilege log; an incident report written by the assistant store manager and a witness incident statement. After these documents were reviewed privately by the judge, the trail court ordered their production. Publix appealed this decision and the order to produce the two documents was quashed. The tow documents were created in anticipation of litigation and are confidential. In order for these documents to be discoverable, the Plaintiff would have had to show necessity for them in relation to the case and that they are unable (without due hardship) to obtain the equivalent by any other means (i.e. deposition
CATEGORY: DISCOVERY: WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. January 29, 1997 686 So.2d 801 1997 WL 30807
The trial court awarded verdict to Publix for a slip and fall suit filed by Mr. Mayo. He was injured when he stepped off a scale in the store and claimed he was hit by the shopping cart of another customer who did not stay to assist him. A main issue was whether Publix was negligent for the placement of the scale (near store entrance & shopping carts) and its visibility. Plaintiff sought to introduce into evidence at trial portions of the store’s manager’s procedures manual in order to show what was reasonable care in the placement of the scale. The trial court excluded this manual from evidence relying on case law interpretation in which such a manual is not admissible. On appeal it was clarified that a party’s own internal operating manuals are admissible if relevant to the issues, but must also meet the test of relevancy. The appellate court upheld the lower court’s ruling to exclude the manual based on relevancy since it did not include mention of safe situation of scale nor were there violations of policies with causal connection to the accident.
CATEGORY: RULES OF EVIDENCE: RELEVANCE, ADMISSIBILITY
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. March 31, 2010 30 So.3d 712 2010 WL 1222707
Toledo slipped and fell in a parking lot adjacent to Publix and had to undergo back surgery. She filed a Complaint against Publix as well as the owner of the parking lot. Three years later she claims she was injured in a car accident and retained an attorney for the auto accident. During the slip and fall litigation, the Defendants subpoenaed the accident attorney for all non-privileged portions of his file. He objected citing attorney-client privilege. The Defendant’s set the matter for hearing and the trial court ordered Toledo’s attorney to submit his file for an in camera inspection. He appealed this Order and it was quashed. The Defendant’s claimed there was insufficient detail in the attorney’s privilege log to make a significant determination re: non-privileged documents. Toledo called the subpoena a “fishing expedition”. The Defendant’s did not propound interrogatories or requests for production in order to determine if there were documents in the auto accident file relevant to the fall in the parking lot.
CATEGORY: DISCOVERY: RELEVANCY, PRIVILEGE
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. April 17, 1970 234 So.2d 132
Plaintiff Little appealed a final judgment upon directed verdict in favor of Publix after she filed suit following a slip and fall on a clear liquid while in the store. Publix motion for directed verdict was based on the contention that there was no evidence to show the store had actual notice of the condition of the floor or inference that the liquid had been there long enough that the store should have known about it. Mrs. Little had stood at the entrance of the aisle talking to someone for about 15-20 minutes before entering the aisle in which she slipped. During that time she did not see or hear anyone in that aisle nor did she hear any breaks or spills. It could be inferred from this that no one was in that aisle and thus the liquid had to have been there for at least 15-20 minutes. The directed verdict in favor of Publix was reversed and remanded upon appeal based on the fact that the 15-20 minute time period was found sufficient for Publix to have known of the condition and also was a reasonable amount of time in which to have corrected it.
CATEGORY: RULES OF EVIDENCE: INFERENCE
Disclaimer - These cases are being provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any way. The law is constantly evolving, including being replaced or modified. Therefore, we urge you to speak with an experienced Florida lawyer about your case to learn about your rights.
Quick Slip And Fall Facts:
Want to Know More? Talk With a Slip and Fall Lawyer
Since 1982, Alan Sackrin has represented clients throughout Florida in recovering monetary damages for slip & fall, trip & fall, and other premises liability injuries. Alan is an expert personal injury lawyer and a Board Certified Civil Trial Specialist that strives to protect the rights and best interest of his clients. Alan brings a high-level of skill and representation to slip and fall cases. He offers a free and informative initial consultation.
Related Slip and Fall Topics
Please feel free to read our other slip and fall (trip and fall) related articles and fact sheets, including:
Do You Have a Question?
Please fill out the “Talk With An Attorney” form above to ask a question or you can call Alan Sackrin at 954-458-8655. He promises to get back to you promptly. Ask now.
Learn More: See Our Slip and Fall Resource Page