Appeals Court Overturns $1.3 Million Slip-and-Fall Verdict Due to Lack of Evidence

An appellate court has reversed a $1.3 million jury verdict in a slip-and-fall case, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to prove the defendant had constructive notice of a hazardous condition. The plaintiff, who allegedly slipped on a liquid substance while picking up her food order, could not identify any visible spill before or after her fall. Surveillance footage showed no clear indication of a spill occurring in the minutes leading up to the incident, and employee testimony failed to confirm the presence of a hazard. The court determined that mere speculation about how long a spill might have been present was not enough to establish liability.

The plaintiff walked to the defendant’s counter and ordered her food, then walked to a table by the window. She did not notice any water on the floor the first time, but when she approached the counter to pick up her food, she allegedly slipped in liquid. Importantly, although the plaintiff testified that she felt wetness soaking into her pants, she did not notice any liquid on the floor either before or after her fall. Employees testified that they did not see any hazards, and surveillance footage did not indicate anyone spilled anything on the floor in the five minutes before the plaintiff fell; however, they testified that it was possible a customer could have spilled a drink 20 minutes before the fall. 

The court found that the plaintiff’s testimony that there was a spill, as well as the defendant’s testimony that someone could have spilled something 20 minutes before the fall, was pure speculation. The court held that, even with the admission of company policies requiring cleanliness, the plaintiff still must establish evidence of how long the spill was present in order to establish constructive notice. 

The court also went further to agree with the 6th District Court of Appeal in finding that, even if the liquid had been on the floor for five minutes but was indiscernible, then that amount of time is insufficient to support constructive notice. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}