Cases from cite.case.law:

KHORRAN, v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., 251 So. 3d 962 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2010) ; Kenz v. Miami-Dade Cty., 116 So.3d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). . . .

FERNANDEZ, v. LIFEMARK HOSPITALS OF FLORIDA, INC., 246 So. 3d 568 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . City 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 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

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

TARGET CORPORATION, a v. KAUFER,, 244 So. 3d 315 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . At the same time, the Legislature enacted section 768.0755, Florida Statutes. Id. . . . Some courts have concluded that section 768.0755 eliminated the statutory mode of operation claim. . . . But, we need not address that issue as this Court has previously held that section 768.0755 is only applicable . . .

PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC. v. BELLAICHE,, 245 So. 3d 873 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Pursuant to section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, Bellaiche was required to prove that Publix had actual . . . Lifemark Hosps. of Fla., 211 So.3d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ; § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2010). . . .

LAGO, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,, 233 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . But in Florida Statutes section 768.0755 the legislature modified a business’s duties when its invitees . . . Section 768.0755 provides: (1) If a person slips and falls on a transitory foreign substance in a business . . . known of the condition; or (b) The condition occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable. § 768.0755 . . . In Delgado, decided before the effective date of section 768.0755, the plaintiff testified she did not . . .

SEABERG, v. STEAK N SHAKE OPERATIONS, INC., 697 F. App'x 941 (11th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 768.0755. This statute, however, does not affect any common-law duties of care. Id. . . . Stat. § 768.0755. . . .

ENCARNACION, v. LIFEMARK HOSPITALS OF FLORIDA,, 211 So. 3d 275 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . breach element of the claim against an owner of the establishment is statutorily constrained by section 768.0755 . . . The statute reads as follows: 768.0755. . . .

WILSON- GREENE, v. CITY OF MIAMI,, 208 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Palmieri, 559 So.2d at 76; see also § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2010). . . .

SUKER v. WHITE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PSL LLC,, 193 So. 3d 1028 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

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

MARSHALLS OF M. A. INC. v. WITTER,, 186 So. 3d 570 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . We recognize that ■ section 768.0755(1) provides that “[i]f a person slips and falls on a transitory . . . constructive knowledge of the dangerous- condition and should have taken -action. to remedy it.” § 768.0755 . . .

SEABERG, v. STEAK N SHAKE OPERATIONS, INC., 154 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . Stat. § 768.0755(1). See, e.g., Glaze v. . . . Stat.- § 768.0755 (the premises liability statute). . . . Stat. § 768.0755 impacts this,common law legal status. . . . Stat. § 768.0755 is a substantive or procedural rule of law). . Fla. . . . . § 768.0755 refers to "a person” who is injured. . . .

WEAVER, E. v. C. MYERS, M. D. LLC d b a d b a a k a d b a, 170 So. 3d 873 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Such distinctions include section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, which governs "Premises liability for transitory . . .

McCARTHY, v. BROWARD COLLEGE, 164 So. 3d 78 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . could not prove actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, as required by section 768.0755 . . . affirm the entry of summary judgment and write for the limited purposes of 1) establishing that section 768.0755 . . . Broward College is a “Business Establishment” Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2011), states: (1) . . . Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s application of section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2011), in this . . . Conclusion The trial court correctly found that section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2011), applies to . . .

GLAZE, A v. WORLEY, A LP. DB,, 157 So. 3d 552 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . that (1) section 768.0710, Florida Statutes (2004), is the applicable law in this case because section 768.0755 . . . Both cases discussed the retroactivity of section 768.0755, Florida Statutes. . . . July 21, 2010) (“[Section 768.0755] adds a new element to the claim, creating a new legal obligation . . . The shift from 768.0710 to 768.0755 was far more than a simple procedural change to the burden of proof . . . : 768.0755 Premises liability for transitory foreign substances in a business establishment.— (1) If . . . Inc., 138 So.3d 531, 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), which had been recently decided, stated that section 768.0755 . . . disagreement with the conclusion, consistent with the dicta in Feris, that the stricter standard of section 768.0755 . . . Miami-Dade County, 116 So.3d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), which ruled that section 768.0755 applied retroactively . . . the puddle on the mall’s walkway — which would otherwise be the death knell of a claim under section 768.0755 . . .

MILLARD MALL SERVICES, INC. a MLP a v. BOLDA,, 155 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Moreover, even if the quarterly reports could be considered work product, the enactment of section 768.0755 . . . or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken action to remedy it.” § 768.0755 . . .

WALKER, v. WINN- DIXIE STORES, INC. a, 160 So. 3d 909 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . entering final summary judgment, the court found: In 2010, the Florida legislature enacted Section 768.0755 . . . Although this action arose before the enactment of Section 768.0755, it has now been held that the statute . . . found that the store manager’s testimony was insufficient to meet Appellant’s burden under section 768.0755 . . . Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010), provides: (1) If a person slips and falls on a transitory . . . This court, in dicta, reached a different conclusion concerning the retroactive effect of section 768.0755 . . .

DOUDEAU, v. TARGET CORPORATION,, 572 F. App'x 970 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 768.0755(1). . . .

VALLOT, v. LOGAN S ROADHOUSE, INC., 567 F. App'x 723 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 768.0755, which requires that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous . . . Stat. § 768.0755(1) (emphasis added). . . . The Third District Court of Appeal noted that, even if § 768.0755 did not operate retroactively and § . . . In affirming the trial court’s decision not to apply § 768.0755 retroactively, the court certified a . . . Whether § 768.0755 applies retroactively has not yet been resolved by the Florida Supreme Court. . . .

R. FERIS, Jr. v. CLUB COUNTRY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, INC. d b a d b a,, 138 So. 3d 531 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Club Country filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010 . . . Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010), which became effective July 1, 2010, approximately a month . . . the condition; or [that] [t]he condition occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.” § 768.0755 . . . Retroactive Application Because of our holding, whether section 768.0755 applies retroactively is not . . . We note that the law enacting section 768.0755 contains no express statement as to the Legislature’s . . .

BERARD, v. TARGET CORPORATION,, 559 F. App'x 977 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 768.0755(1). . . .

PEMBROKE LAKES MALL LTD. a LLC, a v. McGRUDER,, 137 So. 3d 418 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . We also affirm the trial court’s decision to not apply section 768.0755 retroactively, and we certify . . . Pembroke Lakes and Millard also argued their motion to have section 768.0755 apply retroactively and . . . Retroactive Application of Section 768.0755 We first address the issue of whether section 768.0755, Florida . . . With that overview, we turn now to whether section 768.0755 applies retroactively. In Kenz v. . . . Thus, the issue is whether section 768.0755 is procedural or substantive. . . .

PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC. v. SANTOS,, 118 So. 3d 317 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . We conclude that the trial court misinterpreted section 768.0755 because it allowed Santos to procure . . . When the legislature repealed section 768.0710, Florida Statutes (2009), and enacted section 768.0755 . . . Stat. (2009), with § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . See § 768.0755(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . The use of the term “business establishment” found in the current section 768.0755, instead of the use . . .

KENZ, v. MIAMI- DADE COUNTY, 116 So. 3d 461 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . She alleges that the trial court erred in applying section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010), rather . . . On July 1, 2010, after Kenz filed suit but before trial commenced, section 768.0755, Florida Statutes . . . For the purposes of this discussion, section 768.0755 effectively returned Florida law to its pre-Owens . . . On June 7, 2011, Appellees filed a motion seeking a determination that section 768.0755 was applicable . . . Section 768.0755 reads as follows: 768.0755. . . .

METSKER, v. CAREFREE SCOTT FETZER COMPANY, d b a, 90 So. 3d 973 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . The legislature replaced section 768.0710 with a new section 768.0755. . . .

DELGADO, v. LAUNDROMAX, INC., 65 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

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