Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases · …testimony of dirt, scuffing, or tracks in a substance generates sufficient inferences of constructive notice.
46 citation events (35 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Diego v. MSC Cruises, S.A. (flsd, 2024-06-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Diego v. MSC Cruises, S.A.
S.D. Fla. · 2024 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
testimony of dirt, scuffing, or tracks in a substance generates sufficient inferences of constructive notice.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Hostert v. Carnival Corporation
S.D. Fla. · 2024 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
testimony of dirt, scuffing, or tracks in a substance generates sufficient inferences of constructive notice.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Vanessa Sutton v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (3×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2023 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
testimony of dirt, scuffing, or tracks in a substance generates sufficient inferences of construc- tive notice.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) THOMPSON v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
S.D. Fla. · 2022 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
testimony of dirt, scuffing, or tracks in a substance generates sufficient inferences of constructive notice.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Torres v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
S.D. Fla. · 2021 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
testimony of dirt, scuffing, or tracks in a substance generates sufficient inferences of constructive notice.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sabanski
M.D. Fla. · 2025 · confidence medium
Indicators of the passage of time include “dirt, scuffing, or tracks in a substance.” Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moreno v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D. Fla. · 2024 · confidence medium
One, testimony that a substance was dirty (or that it displayed footprints and tracks) “generates a sufficient inference of constructive notice.” Sutton, 64 F.4th at 1171 n.2 (quoting Woods, 621 So. 2d at 711 (cleaned up)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Herrera v. Walmart, Inc. (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.D. Fla. · 2024 · confidence medium
And, in Sutton, the Eleventh Circuit explicitly noted that these three cases (Rubiano, Hernandez, and Granela)—all of which “suggest that a plaintiff needs something more than a track mark or footprints to reach a jury”—“do not accurately recount Florida law.” Sutton, 64 F.4th at 1171 n.2 (citing Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ellis v. Family Dollar Stores of Florida, LLC
M.D. Fla. · 2023 · confidence medium
In the case of a spill, circumstantial evidence may include “dirt, scuffing, or tracks in a substance.” Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); but see Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc., 65 So. 3d 1087, 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“[T]he mere presence of [a substance] on the floor is not enough to establish constructive notice.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pelaez v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
S.D. Fla. · 2022 · confidence medium
It is true that “[t]estimony of dirt, scuffing, or tracks in a substance generates sufficient inferences of constructive notice.” Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, 621 So. 2d 710, 711 (Fla. Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Granela v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
S.D. Fla. · 2021 · confidence medium
Circumstantial evidence of length of time to prove constructive knowledge includes “[t]estimony of dirt, scuffing, or tracks in a substance . . . .” Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (citing Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Guenther, 395 So. 2d 244, 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)). “[T]he mere presence of the substance on the floor is not enough; the record must have additional facts to create a permissible inference about the time the foreign substance had been on the floor . . . .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nieves v. Walmart Stores East, LP
M.D. Fla. · 2020 · confidence medium
Section 768.0755(1) provides that constructive knowledge may be shown through circumstantial evidence that: (a) “[t]he 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) “[t]he condition occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.” For example, evidence that a substance has been on the floor for a long time “may include ‘dirt, scuffing, or tracks in [the] substance.’” Pussinen v. Target Corp., 731 F. App’x 936 , 937 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Woods v. W…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Theresa Pussinen v. Target Corporation
11th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
Circumstantial evidence of the passage of time may include “dirt, scuffing, or tracks in a substance.” Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 710, 711 (Fla. Dist.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
Fla. · 2001 · confidence medium
See Ramey v. Winn Dixie Montgomery, Inc., 710 So.2d 191, 192-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (partially melted butter with lumps in it); Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (unidentified substance described as "very dirty," "trampled," "containing skid marks, scuff marks," and "chewed up"); Ress v. X-tra Super Food Ctrs., Inc., 616 So.2d 110, 110-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (substance that appeared to be sauerkraut was "gunky, dirty and wet and black"); Hodges v. Walsh, 553 So.2d 221, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (sticky substance in bowling alley had dried); Washington v. Pic-…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) De La Torre v. Crete Carrier Corp.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
See Lipsig v. Ramlawi, 760 So.2d 170, 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(“A motion for directed verdict should not be granted unless the trial court, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, determines that no reasonable jury could render a verdict for the non-moving party.”); Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Jacobs v. Westgate, 766 So.2d 1175, 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (It is the function of the jury to weigh and evaluate the evidence.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martinolich v. Golden Leaf Management, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
"In determining a motion for directed verdict, the evidence, and all reasonable inferences, therefrom, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the *615 non-moving party." Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE, DEPT. OF HIGHWAY PATROL v. Pollack
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] See Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(stating that "[i]n determining a motion for directed verdict, the evidence, and all reasonable inferences, therefrom, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party."). [2] Moreover, the street lighting in the area was out, which made it all the more difficult to see the tractor trailer. [3] The evidence at trial showed that officers were available to answer the call had it gone out. [4] The FHP Communication Policy/Procedures Manual, Policy 12.04.03 General Information provides in relevant p…
discussed Cited "see" DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY v. Saleme
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Martinolich v. Golden Leaf Mgmt., Inc., 786 So.2d 613 , 614 *982 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) ("In determining a motion for directed verdict, the evidence, and all reasonable inferences [sic] therefrom, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.") (quoting Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)).
discussed Cited "see" Martinez v. Poly-Ply Corp.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Martinolich v. Golden Leaf Mgmt., Inc., 786 So.2d 613, 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“In determining a motion for directed verdict, the evidence, and all reasonable inferences [sic] therefrom, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” (quoting Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993))), rev. denied, 814 So.2d 439 (Fla.2002).
discussed Cited "see" Blake v. Hi-Lu Corp.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lipsig v. Ramlawi, 760 So.2d 170, 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), citing Houghton v. Bond, 680 So.2d 514, 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that "[a] motion for directed verdict should not be granted unless the trial court, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, determines that no reasonable jury could render a verdict for the non-moving party"), see also Woods v. *1124 Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
discussed Cited "see" State, Department of Highway Patrol v. Pollack
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(stating that "[i]n determining a motion for directed verdict, the evidence, and all reasonable inferences, therefrom, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”). .
discussed Cited "see" Easton-Babcock & Associates, Inc. v. Fernandez (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woods v. Winn Dixie, 621 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Strode v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
M.D. Fla. · 2021 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Pussinen v. Target Corp., 731 F. App’x 936 , 937 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lipsig v. Ramlawi
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(stating that "[i]n determining a motion for directed verdict, the evidence, and all reasonable inferences, therefrom, must be viewed in a light most *176 favorable to the nonmoving party.").
Barbara WOODS and Anthony Woods, Appellants,
v.
WINN DIXIE STORES, INC., Appellee.
92-1107.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 11, 1993.
621 So. 2d 710
Baskin, Gersten and Goderich.
Cited by 32 opinions  |  Published

[*711] Magill & Lewis, and R. Fred Lewis, Miami, for appellants.

Richard N. Blank, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Before BASKIN, GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Barbara Woods and Anthony Woods, appeal a final judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We reverse.

Appellant, Anthony Woods, slipped and fell on an unidentified substance while shopping in appellee's, Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., store. Appellants sued appellee alleging negligence.

At the jury trial, the appellants described the substance as "very dirty", "trampled", "containing skid marks, scuff marks." Appellee's employee verified that the "chewed up" substance contained a scuff mark. Appellants could not say who had caused the marks.

The trial court reserved ruling on appellee's motion for directed verdict on the issue of constructive notice. The jury found appellee 75% negligent and appellant 25% negligent. The trial court set aside the jury verdict and entered judgment for appellee on its motion for directed verdict.

In determining a motion for directed verdict, the evidence, and all reasonable inferences, therefrom, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. See, e.g., Dania Jai Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 425 So.2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), quashed in part on other grounds, 450 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 1984). To sustain judgment pursuant to a directed verdict, the record must conclusively show an absence of fact, or any inference from fact that would support the jury's verdict. See, e.g., Sears Roebuck & Company v. McKenzie, 502 So.2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1987).

Constructive notice of a dangerous condition is shown by evidence that the condition existed for such a length of time that a party, exercising ordinary care, should have known of it. See, e.g., Maryland Maintenance Service, Inc. v. Palmieri, 559 So.2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 574 So.2d 142 (Fla. 1990). The length of time that the condition existed can be proved by circumstantial evidence. See, e.g., Altman v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 579 So.2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Williams, 264 So.2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

Testimony of dirt, scuffing, or tracks in a substance generates sufficient inferences of constructive notice. See, e.g., Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Guenther, 395 So.2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (testimony[*712] that liquid was dirty and scuffed with tracks running through it, sufficient to impute constructive notice of a dangerous condition); see also, Skipper v. Barnes Supermarket, 573 So.2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (indicia of constructive notice includes evidence of cart tracks and footprints).

Both the appellants and appellee's employee testified to dirt, scuffs or skid marks in the substance causing appellant to fall. The jury found that appellee had constructive notice of this dangerous condition and neglected to correct it. The inferences made from the circumstantial evidence are reasonable and support the jury's verdict. Accordingly, we reverse.

Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the jury verdict.