Home – Slip and Fall

Publix Slip And Fall Attorney

See Alan’s Publix slip and fall settlements and get insight on the key concerns with these claims, including compensation, preserving evidence and avoiding low-ball settlement offers.

See Alan’s Publix slip and fall settlements and get insight on the key concerns with these claims, including compensation, preserving evidence and avoiding low-ball settlement offers.

Below is a sample of some of the slip and fall (premises liability) cases Alan Sackrin has settled and won against Publix by filing a lawsuit or pre-suit settlement.

• Confidential Settlement v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
• Settlement: $37,500.00 — E.P. v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
• Confidential Settlement v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
• Settlement: $62,500.00 — R.L. v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
• Confidential Settlement v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
• Settlement: $28,500.00 — I. J. v Publix Super Markets, Inc. — Plaintiff slipped and fell in the produce department — minor injuries
• Settlement: $25,000.00 — E. P. v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. — Plaintiff slipped and fell on water/ice from turkey freezer (the day before Thanksgiving), aggravation of a preexisting back injury.
• Settlement: $7,500.00 — T.H. v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. — A bottle of soda placed on a top shelf fell and shattered with the broken pieces striking Plaintiff.
• Settlement: $17,500.00 — C.T. v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. — Our client slipped and fell on the green paper that Publix uses to wrap food at the deli, and she sustained an ankle fracture. This claim was settled pre-lawsuit.

A Note Regarding Confidential Settlements: Oftentimes, Publix will require a victim to agree to a confidentiality covenant (with onerous language that should be modified or deleted) when settling a claim. Meaning, the injury victim is required to sign a document promising to keep and hold the facts surrounding their settlement in full and strictest confidence. Consequently, we stopped updating the list of cases Alan Sackrin has settled and won against Publix.

Related: Publix Injury Lawyer

Key Concerns About Publix Slip and Falls

Here is a sample of the key concerns that visitors and clients have had about Publix slip and falls and other premises liability claims. This information comes directly from the large number of emails, online chats, and calls we’ve had with clients and visitors over the last several years.

Slip and Fall Accidents

• A significant number of cases involve injuries caused by wet or slippery floors, missing warning signs, objects on the floor, or outdoor hazards like painted parking lot stripes after rain.
• Injury reports include knee sprains, back pain, torn ligaments, hand and shoulder injuries, fractured bones, brain injuries, and concussions.
• Accidents often occurred in common store areas like aisles, the deli section, parking lots, and restrooms.
• Some victims faced long-term recovery, including surgeries, physical therapy, or being unable to work.

Premises Liability Injuries

• Shoppers were hurt by falling objects such as glass candles or store items inadequately placed on shelves.
• Puddle-related incidents in parking lots or wet store entrances were also cited.
• Negligence in Store Upkeep. Complaints about hazards like protruding rebar in parking lots, blocked aisles, and wet areas were frequent, with stores allegedly failing to address these recurring issues.

Legal Representation Concerns

• Settlement negotiations handled by prior lawyers — Dissatisfaction with settlement offers, often citing them as inadequate or rushed. Some clients voiced concern over being pressured to accept settlements without thorough case reviews by their former lawyer.
• Dropped Cases — Some individuals sought second opinions after their current lawyers dropped their cases.

Frequent Concerns and Questions

• Lasting physical injuries, psychological distress, or financial burdens due to time off work and medical expenses.
• Clarity on legal rights and steps to file claims.
• Preservation of Evidence. Concerns centered on making sure surveillance footage was preserved before it could be overwritten.
• Victims hesitancy to seek medical care and wanting guidance on documenting injuries appropriately to strengthen their claims.
• Skepticism or frustration with Publix risk management’s responses, incident logging, or follow-through after complaints.
• Advice on whether to accept or negotiate (low-ball) settlements offered by Publix risk management.

Quick Publix Facts:

According to the Clerk of the Court’s website, the number of premises liability cases filed against Publix per year in Broward County, Florida, is:

• 2025 — 101
• 2024 — 63
• 2023 — 157
• 2022 — 52
• 2021 — 46
• 2020 — 47
• 2019 — 44
• 2018 — 42
• 2017 — 46
• 2016 — 42
• 2015 — 44
• 2014 — 57
• 2013 — 53
• 2012 — 33

Did you already settle your claim or sign a document with Publix? In some instances, we may still be able to help. For example, if you signed a release within a few days after your slip and fall or another injury, but were confused thinking the document related to medical bills being advanced then we may still be able to help.

Common Causes of Publix Slip and Falls

The most frequent causes of slip and falls, and other premises liability accidents, at Publix include:

• leaking freezers,
• items dropped on the floor,
• missing “wet floor” signs,
• accidents related to e-scooters,
• items falling from shelves,
• trip and falls in the entrance way, sidewalk or parking lot, and
• missing floor mats or floor mats which are not properly placed, damaged or become folded.

How Does a Publix Slip and Fall Attorney Prove a Claim Against The Company?

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 surveillance video or maintenance log-books.

The best ways to prove a claim is to 1) have the court order their lawyers produce the video footage; 2) show pictures of the transitory substance on the floor; 3) review their log-books to learn how often employees are checking and cleaning the aisle; 3) take the deposition of store employees; and 4) request interrogatories, request for admissions, requests to produce and other statutory and rules of court procedures.

Read (From Alan’s Personal Injury 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:

• Pain and Suffering (From Alan’s personal injury blog)
• Medical Bills — Past and Future
• Lost Wages (From Alan’s personal injury blog)
• Loss of Enjoyment of Life

Common Injuries Resulting From a Slip and Fall

• Hand and Wrist Injuries
• Shoulder
• Fractured bones
• Head injuries — concussion
• Ankle injuries (From Alan’s personal injury blog)

Florida Statutory 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 Slip and Fall Case Law

Below are appellate cases involving Publix and slip and fall cases occurring in their grocery stores. We believe analyzing these cases gives us a view into how Publix approaches slip and fall cases.

Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.

A 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, the verdict was affirmed (the plaintiff would have had to prove how long the banana had been on the floor).

CATEGORY: constructive knowledge

Schaap v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.

A woman slipped and fell on a piece of cookie that was on the floor. The 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, the 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

Publix Super Market, Inc. v. Sanchez

A woman, while shopping at Publix, slipped and fell on a piece of cake which had fallen from a demonstration table. The Plaintiff alleged that Publix created the dangerous condition and negligently maintained its premises. No evidence of how long the cake had been on the floor or who dropped it. A verdict was entered in favor of Plaintiff, however, was reversed based on her failure to prove how long cake had been on the floor and whether this condition happened so frequently that Publix should have had knowledge of it.

CATEGORY: constructive notice

McClure v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.

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 the plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Publix responded that it would produce the requested video following her deposition. The 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; The Court retains the discretion to control the timing of discovery, even though the tapes are not considered work product.

CATEGORY: discovery timing

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Worley

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. The 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.

Defigueiredo v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.

A woman fell in Publix. Summary Judgment was awarded to Publix based on a release by Plaintiff in exchange for payment of medical bills. The Plaintiff claimed a 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 the case was remanded for a new trial.

CATEGORY: misrepresentation

Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Johnson

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’s 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 regarding 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 regarding the work-product privilege and relevance regarding privacy rights. The Order denying protection from discovery was quashed.

CATEGORY: DISCOVERY: WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, NECESSITY

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Anderson

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, the 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 trial court ordered their production. Publix appealed this decision and the order to produce the two documents was quashed. The two 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 the 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

Mayo v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. January 29, 1997 686 So.2d 801 1997 WL 30807

The trial court awarded a 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. One 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

Toledo v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.

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 regarding non-privileged documents. Toledo called the subpoena a “fishing expedition”. The Defendants 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

Little v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. April 17, 1970, 234 So.2d 132

Plaintiff Little appealed a final judgment upon the 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 a 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 to 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 to 20 minutes. The directed verdict in favor of Publix was reversed and remanded upon appeal based on the fact that the 15 to 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

Dominguez v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. March 2, 2016, 187 So.3d 892.

A patron slipped and fell on a detergent spill in a Publix aisle. The assistant manager had observed the spill but had not yet blocked off the aisle pursuant to store policy at the time of the fall. The court held that the detergent patch was an open and obvious condition and that Publix did not have a duty to warn the patron of it. The court also confirmed that a store’s internal safety policies do not themselves establish the standard of care owed to a patron who suffers injury. The verdict was entered in favor of Publix.

CATEGORY: constructive knowledge, open and obvious condition, internal safety policies

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Bellaiche

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. March 28, 2018, 245 So.3d 873.

A patron alleged she slipped and fell on water on the grocery store floor. The only janitor on duty had inspected the area approximately 15 minutes prior to the fall. The court held that Publix was not responsible for the patron’s injuries because there was no evidence the store had actual notice of the dangerous condition. The court also confirmed that a jury may not stack inferences to determine that a party had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition, and that the mere possibility of causation is not sufficient to establish liability. The verdict was entered in favor of Publix.

CATEGORY: actual notice, constructive knowledge, stacking inferences

Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Santos

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. July 31, 2013, 118 So.3d 317.

A patron slipped and fell on spinach that had fallen onto the grocery store aisle. The court addressed the definition of “business establishment” as used in Florida Statute 768.0755, holding that the term refers to the actual place of business where the slip and fall occurred. The decision clarified the scope of the statute governing the standard of proof required in premises liability claims based on a transitory foreign substance.

CATEGORY: Florida Statute 768.0755, business establishment definition

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Roth

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. February 17, 2023, 355 So.3d 1056.

A patron slipped and fell on a transitory substance in a Publix store. The court reaffirmed that under Florida Statute 768.0755, the injured person must prove that the business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken action to remedy it. The court clarified that the proof required for the breach element of a negligence claim in a transitory foreign substance case is constrained by and cannot exceed the requirements of the statute.

CATEGORY: Florida Statute 768.0755, constructive knowledge, burden of proof

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Blanco

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. January 25, 2023, 373 So.3d 1178.

A patron slipped and fell in a Publix store and sought recovery under the mode of operation theory. The court confirmed that this theory allows a slip and fall plaintiff to recover by showing that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in selecting a mode of operation, without requiring proof that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the specific hazardous condition that caused the injury. This decision is significant for plaintiffs whose claims involve recurring operational conditions rather than a single isolated spill.

CATEGORY: mode of operation theory, constructive knowledge

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Safonte

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. June 20, 2024, 388 So.3d 32.

A patron slipped and fell on a yogurt spill that had been on the floor for only two minutes. The court held that Publix could not be charged with constructive knowledge based on the length of time the condition existed, and that the spill was not the result of a regularly occurring dangerous condition. The court reaffirmed that to prove a dangerous condition occurred with regularity — which can impute constructive knowledge to a defendant — a plaintiff must provide evidence of recurring or ongoing problems resulting from operational negligence or negligent maintenance. The verdict was entered in favor of Publix.

CATEGORY: constructive knowledge, regularity, length of time condition existed

Fenster v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. May 30, 2001, 785 So.2d 737.

A patron was injured after slipping and falling in a Publix store. The court held that a plaintiff’s knowledge of a dangerous condition does not negate a defendant’s potential liability for negligently permitting that condition to exist. A plaintiff’s awareness of the condition simply raises the issue of comparative negligence and precludes summary judgment in favor of the defendant. This is a favorable decision for plaintiffs — even if you were aware of the condition that caused your fall, Publix may still be held liable and the matter becomes one for the jury to decide.

CATEGORY: comparative negligence, plaintiff’s knowledge, summary judgment

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Heiser

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. September 11, 1963, 156 So.2d 540.

A business invitee slipped and fell on a broken jar that had fallen from a shelf in Publix. Store employees arrived at the scene within 90 seconds of the jar falling, only to find that the patron had already slipped and fallen on it. The court held that Publix was not negligent because the time between the creation of the condition and the fall was so short that the store had no reasonable opportunity to discover and correct it. This case is frequently cited by Publix in defense of claims where the interval between the creation of the dangerous condition and the patron’s fall is very brief.

CATEGORY: constructive knowledge, length of time condition existed

Recent Publix Slip and Fall Verdicts

Jordan v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. — Lake County Circuit Court, Case No. 35-2021-CA-001339. Verdict June 28, 2024.

Heidi Jordan visited a Publix at 27615 US-27 in Leesburg on August 23, 2020 and slipped on food and produce on the floor of the produce department. She suffered herniated discs in her neck and back, serious bruising and hematomas on her right arm, and ultimately required a cervical fusion after years of physical therapy. Publix admitted negligence before trial but challenged the extent of her injuries. The judge entered a directed verdict on liability, leaving only damages for the jury. The jury awarded $4,261,410.80.

CATEGORY: constructive knowledge, damages

Marcano v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. — Osceola County Circuit Court, Case No. 2024-CA-001128. Verdict February 24, 2026.

Victoria Marcano, a 30-year-old mother of three, slipped on liquid in the beverage aisle of a Publix store on North John Young Parkway in Kissimmee on June 5, 2023. Evidence at trial showed that Publix employees had previously cleaned liquid in the same area before her fall. As a result of the fall she underwent three spinal surgeries — one cervical and two lumbar. Publix denied liability throughout and argued she was not injured, attempting to attribute her injuries to complaints from carrying her children months before the fall. After a six-day trial the jury found Publix 100% at fault and awarded $3,967,000 ($411,000 past medical, $556,000 future medical, $750,000 past pain and suffering, remainder future pain and suffering). Publix’s final pre-trial offer was $600,000. Note: Publix has filed a post-trial motion seeking a new trial or remittitur; the motion was pending as of April 2026.

CATEGORY: constructive knowledge, damages

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 slip and fall lawyer about your case to learn about your rights.

Read More: Publix Slip and Fall Guides on Alan’s Injury Blog

Alan’s personal injury blog covers every specific scenario and defense issue that comes up in Publix slip and fall litigation. If you have a specific question about your situation, the pages below are a good place to start.

• The Store Says There Is No Video of My Fall — Do I Still Have a Case?
• Publix Risk Management Called After My Fall — What Should I Know?
• I Already Signed Something at Publix — Can I Still Sue?
• Publix Parking Lot Slip and Fall — Who Is Responsible in Florida?
• How Publix Defends Slip and Fall Cases in Florida
• Publix Slip and Fall in the Produce Section
• Publix Slip and Fall at the Entrance During Rain
• What Is a Publix Slip and Fall Case Worth in Florida?

Quick Slip And Fall Facts:

Slip and falls are the second leading cause of injuries and deaths after car accidents. Every hour an older adult dies as a result of a fall. The most common injuries resulting from slip and falls include, herniated disc, head injury and/or a knee injury.

Want to Know More? Talk With a Publix 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 slip and fall lawyer and a Board Certified Civil Trial Specialist who has spent years evaluating accident facts, applying the law, and has effectively asked juries to render favorable verdicts for his clients.

To learn more about Alan, see his bio.

Related Slip and Fall Topics

Please feel free to read our other slip and fall (trip and fall) related articles and fact sheets, including:

• 6 Environmental factors that can cause slip and fall accidents
• 4 Factors that determine the types of injuries from a slip and fall
• Slip and Fall Case Checklist
• Sample Slip and Fall Lawsuit