SARAH J. RODGERS
v.
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A plaintiff's testimony that a substance on the floor was "oily," "dirty," and "dark" is insufficient to create a jury issue regarding a store's constructive notice of a hazardous condition without additional facts supporting an inference that the substance had been on the floor long enough to require the defendant to discover and remedy it.
[1] In a premises liability action, a plaintiff's testimony that a substance on the floor appeared to be oily, dirty, or discolored is insufficient to establish constructive…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“inferences on top of inferences to explain customer's fall”
Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Schmidt, citing the improper basis for a jury verdict relying on multiple speculative inferences rather than concrete evidence of notice
Sarah J. Rodgers slipped and fell on an unknown substance on the floor of a Publix Super Market. Rodgers testified that the substance appeared to be "…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Slip And Fall Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hosps. of Fla., 211 So. 3d 275, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (noting that plaintiff’s testimony that substance on the floor was “oily,” “dirty” and “dark” was insufficient to create a jury issue absent additional facts “from which a jury [could] reasonably conclude that the substance was on the floor long enough to have become discolored without assuming other facts”); Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Schmidt, 509 So. 2d 977, 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (holding there was “no proof that Publix or its employees were at fault, or that the substance was on the floor for a sufficient length of time to put defendant on notice” and reversing jury’s verdict that impermissibly relied on “inferences on top of inferences” to explain customer’s fall); Palavicini v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP., 787 F. App’x 1007, 1012
(11th Cir. 2019) (finding testimony that liquid on the floor appeared to be “yellow” and “dirty” was not enough to establish constructive notice and noting lack of evidence of footprints, prior track marks, drying of liquid, etc. that would tend to show liquid had been on the floor for a sufficient amount of time).
MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________