Florida Statute 768.0755 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XLV
TORTS

Chapter 768
NEGLIGENCE

View Entire Chapter

768.0755 Premises liability for transitory foreign substances in a business establishment.—

(1) If a person slips and falls on a transitory foreign substance in a business establishment, 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. Constructive knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing that:

(a) The 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) The condition occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.

(2) This section does not affect any common-law duty of care owed by a person or entity in possession or control of a business premises.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2010-8.

F.S. 768.0755 on Google Scholar

F.S. 768.0755 on CourtListener

Amendments to 768.0755

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 768.0755

Total Results: 47

Pembroke Lakes Mall Ltd. v. McGruder

137 So. 3d 418, 2014 WL 714706, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2578

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 26, 2014 | Docket: 60240304

Cited 45 times | Published

(2) the trial court erred by determining section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010) did not apply retroactively

Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc.

65 So. 3d 1087, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8958, 2011 WL 2496658

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 15, 2011 | Docket: 60301620

Cited 36 times | Published

statute has since been repealed and replaced by section 768.0755 (2010), which defines how a breach of duty

Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hospitals of Florida, Inc.

211 So. 3d 275, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1109

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 1, 2017 | Docket: 4578723

Cited 26 times | Published

establishment is statutorily constrained by section 768.0755 of the Florida Statutes (2013). The statute

Wilson-Greene v. City of Miami

208 So. 3d 1271, 2017 WL 361995, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 713

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 25, 2017 | Docket: 4573204

Cited 16 times | Published

foreseeable. Palmieri, 559 So.2d at 76; see also § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2010). In the instant case, there

Walker v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

160 So. 3d 909, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12736, 2014 WL 4086798

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 20, 2014 | Docket: 60246937

Cited 15 times | Published

judgment, arguing that the recently-enacted section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, requires “proof of actual

Kenz v. Miami-Dade County

116 So. 3d 461, 2013 WL 1748954, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6592

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 2013 | Docket: 60232356

Cited 9 times | Published

alleges that the trial court erred in applying section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010), rather than section

Khorran v. Harbor Freight Tools USA

251 So. 3d 962

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 2018 | Docket: 7292494

Cited 7 times | Published

and fall on a transitory foreign substance. See § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2010); Kenz v. Miami-Dade Cty.,

Seaberg v. Steak N' Shake Operations, Inc.

154 F. Supp. 3d 1294, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172973, 2015 WL 9488953

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Dec 30, 2015 | Docket: 64306205

Cited 5 times | Published

at 716). II. Steak N’ Shake’s Knowledge Florida Statute 768.0755 provides, in relevant part, that: (1)

Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Santos

118 So. 3d 317, 2013 WL 3968197, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 12070, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1657

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 2013 | Docket: 60233179

Cited 5 times | Published

the burden of proof standard set forth in section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2011), did not require

Feris v. Club Country of Fort Walton Beach, Inc.

138 So. 3d 531, 2014 WL 1696898, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6292

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 2014 | Docket: 60240702

Cited 4 times | Published

motion for summary judgment, arguing that section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010), requires a plaintiff

Linda McCarthy v. Broward College and Sunshine Cleaning Systems, Inc.

164 So. 3d 78, 2015 WL 2078744

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 6, 2015 | Docket: 2679358

Cited 3 times | Published

condition, as *79 required by section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2011). The trial court

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Bellaiche

245 So. 3d 873

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 28, 2018 | Docket: 6348072

Cited 1 times | Published

873 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Pursuant to section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, Bellaiche was required

Cathy Suker and Johnny Suker v. White Family Limited Partnership and PSL Donuts, LLC

193 So. 3d 1028, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8815, 2016 WL 3182672

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 8, 2016 | Docket: 3071340

Cited 1 times | Published

trial court granted summary judgment based on Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2013), finding that the

Metsker v. Carefree/Scott Fetzer Co.

90 So. 3d 973, 2012 WL 2401790, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10466

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 27, 2012 | Docket: 60309737

Cited 1 times | Published

legislature replaced section 768.0710 with a new section 768.0755. Ch. 2010-8, § 1, at 182, Laws of Fla.

Barbara Loren v. Once Upon a Time Group, Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 9, 2025 | Docket: 70740044

Published

plaintiff’s claim is statutorily constrained by section 768.0755, Florida Statutes.” Dolgen Corp, LLC v. Doty

Hector Garcia v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 18, 2025 | Docket: 70572360

Published

by declining to postpone a summary 1 Section 768.0755(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes provides as

Nicole Morris v. Capital City Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 2025 | Docket: 69612289

Published

Both parties had focused on the operation of section 768.0755(1), Florida Statutes. That provision states

Donna Ruth and Timothy Ruth v. JEM Restaurant Group of Florida, Inc., JETTS Florida Bells, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 2024 | Docket: 69404300

Published

breach element is ‘statutorily constrained’ by section 768.0755, Florida Statutes.” Welch, 357 So. 3d at 1278

Burger King and Seven Restaurants, LLC v. Richard L. Tulecki, Jr.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 2024 | Docket: 68678941

Published

12 So. 3d 247, 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2019), governs liability

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Joseph Safonte

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 2024 | Docket: 68282613

Published

condition and should have taken action to remedy it.” § 768.0755(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). Because no evidence

Daniel Valdes v. Verona at Deering Bay Condominium Association, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 19, 2024 | Docket: 68177876

Published

and should have taken action to remedy it.” § 768.0755(1), Fla. Stat. “Constructive notice may be inferred

Leftwich v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 24, 2024 | Docket: 68561959

Published

the transitory foreign substance statute, section 768.0755(1), Florida Statutes, is appropriate to ensure

Duran v. Crab Shack Acqusition, FL, LLC, Joe's Crab Shack

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 2024 | Docket: 68103679

Published

complained of was an unreasonable hazard.”). Section 768.0755(1), Florida Statutes (2017)—consistent with

DOLGEN CORP, LLC D/B/A DOLLAR GENERAL v. KIMBERLY DOTY, CHRISTOPHER DOTY, AND KATHY WILLIAMS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 22, 2024 | Docket: 67316874

Published

plaintiff’s claim “is ‘statutorily constrained’ by section 768.0755, Florida Statutes.” Welch v. CHLN, Inc., 357

DOLGEN CORP, LLC D/B/A DOLLAR GENERAL v. KIMBERLY DOTY, CHRISTOPHER DOTY, AND KATHY WILLIAMS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 22, 2024 | Docket: 67316874

Published

plaintiff’s claim “is ‘statutorily constrained’ by section 768.0755, Florida Statutes.” Welch v. CHLN, Inc., 357

SANDRA LEFTWICH v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP AND THOMAS SCHOENDORF

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 22, 2024 | Docket: 67622118

Published

breach element is ‘statutorily constrained’ by section 768.0755, Florida Statutes.” Welch, 357 So. 3d at 1278

Ana Del Carpio v. Western Beef of Florida, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 2024 | Docket: 68132313

Published

establish appellees’ knowledge of the water under section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2018). This appeal followed

Elizabeth Sentz v. Bonefish Grill, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 2023 | Docket: 68008456

Published

in business premises cases are governed by section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2020). Pembroke Lakes Mall

Vanessa Sutton v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Mar 31, 2023 | Docket: 66921861

Published

Argued: Mar 1, 2023

22-10162 Fla. Stat. § 768.0755(1); see also Lago v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,

WANDA WELCH vs CHLN, INC.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 2023 | Docket: 63591332

Published

breach element is “statutorily constrained” by section 768.0755, Florida Statutes. Encarnacion v. Lifemark

PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC. v. ERNESTO BLANCO

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 25, 2023 | Docket: 66757236

Published

because section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, 2 requires a plaintiff to 2 Section 768.0755, Florida

SARAH BENSALAH v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 11, 2022 | Docket: 63301675

Published

LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2016); Encarnacion v. Lifemark

NORTH LAUDERDALE SUPERMARKET, INC. d/b/a SEDANO'S SUPERMARKET 35 v. LUZ PUENTES and JAIRO GARCIA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 2021 | Docket: 61637700

Published

Defendant contended that, to be consistent with section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2014) (discussed below)

MANUEL VARGAS v. DOLPHIN MALL ASSOCIATES, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 2021 | Docket: 61637659

Published

dangerous condition” to take remedial action. § 768.0755(1), Fla. Stat. (2021); see Dominguez v. Publix

SPEEDWAY LLC v. GLORIA CEVALLOS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 15, 2021 | Docket: 61618240

Published

So. 2d 498, 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2016), governs liability

MARIA MESA DE LOS ANGELES v. WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 8, 2021 | Docket: 60368598

Published

2 condition. See § 768.0755(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2017);1 Morales v. Ross

BRANDY T. OLIVER v. WINN-DIXIE STORE, INC.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 19, 2020 | Docket: 16861546

Published

768.0710, Fla. Stat.). But when it enacted section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010)—the current premises

In re: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases - Report No. 19-02

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 5, 2019 | Docket: 68539975

Published

substances in a business establishment, see F.S. 768.0755 and cases interpreting it.” No amendments were

Fernandez v. Lifemark Hosps. of Fla., Inc.

246 So. 3d 568

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 2018 | Docket: 64680990

Published

of Miami, 208 So.3d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ; § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2014).

Vazquez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

245 So. 3d 977

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 2, 2018 | Docket: 64680212

Published

of Miami, 208 So.3d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ; § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2014).

TARGET CORPORATION v. LAZARO KAUFER and KATIA KAUFER

244 So. 3d 315

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 2018 | Docket: 6375004

Published

enacted section 768.0755, Florida Statutes. Id. Some courts have concluded that section 768.0755 eliminated

Lago v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 2017 | Docket: 6240840

Published

3d at 1089. But in Florida Statutes section 768.0755 the legislature modified a business’s duties

Marshalls of M.A., Inc. v. Witter

186 So. 3d 570, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1416, 2016 WL 403212

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 3, 2016 | Docket: 3033843

Published

1384 (Fla.1994). We recognize that ■ section 768.0755(1) provides that “[i]f a person slips and

Weaver v. Myers

170 So. 3d 873, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10952, 2015 WL 4429170

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 2015 | Docket: 60249524

Published

categorized under the law. Such distinctions include section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, which governs "Premises

Deborah Glaze, as Parent etc. v. Kathy Worley, DBA Chick- FIL-A etc.

157 So. 3d 552

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 2015 | Docket: 2638639

Published

is the applicable law in this case because section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010), cannot be applied

Millard Mall Services, Inc. v. Bolda

155 So. 3d 1272, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1839, 2015 WL 543041

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 2015 | Docket: 60294042

Published

considered work product, the enactment of section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, concerning premises liability

Millard Services, Inc., etc. and Sunrise Mills (MLP) Limited Partnership, etc. v. Mary Bolda

155 So. 3d 1272

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 11, 2015 | Docket: 2633406

Published

considered work product, the enactment of section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, concerning premises liability

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. Attorney Syfert regularly works with Chapter 768 in the context of negligence and personal injury claims and represents clients throughout Northeast Florida. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.