Florida Statute 768.0755 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XLV
TORTS

Chapter 768
NEGLIGENCE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 768.0755

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 Casetext

Amendments to 768.0755

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 768.0755

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 768.0755.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 768.0755

Total Results: 20

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

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-07-31T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: . 3d 247, 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2019), governs liability for…Enacted in 2010 to replace section 768.0710, section 768.0755 differs from its predecessor in two ways: (1) … knowledge of the dangerous condition, section 768.0755 does not allow for liability “based solely on … franchisee had actual knowledge under section 768.0755(1) of the greasy and slippery floor. Accordingly

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Joseph Safonte

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-06-20T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: and should have taken action to remedy it.” § 768.0755(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). Because no evidence…constructive knowledge of the spill. Section 768.0755(1) provides two ways in which a plaintiff can …establishment should have known of the condition[.]” § 768.0755(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018). Alternatively, a plaintiff…with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.” § 768.0755(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2018). Here, the evidence…is insufficient to prove, under either section 768.0755(1)(a) or (b), that Publix had constructive knowledge

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

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-06-19T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: and should have taken action to remedy it.” § 768.0755(1), Fla. Stat. “Constructive notice may be inferred…Eleventh Circuit decision addressing Florida Statute §768.0755.” But federal decisions don’t bind state courts

Leftwich v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-05-24T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: transitory foreign substance statute, section 768.0755(1), Florida Statutes, is appropriate to ensure…establishment should have known of the condition[.]” § 768.0755(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2024). The unanimous panel

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

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-04-25T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)). Section 768.0755 states: 1 Section 768.0755(2) provides, “This section does… was an unreasonable hazard.”). Section 768.0755(1), Florida Statutes (2017)—consistent with the…regularity and was therefore foreseeable. § 768.0755(1), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). As the …with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.” § 768.0755(1), Fla. Stat. Contrary to Joe’s Crab Shack’s ….4th 1166, 1172 (11th Cir. 2023) (citing section 768.0755(1)(a) in rejecting Wal-Mart’s claim that the plaintiff

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

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-03-22T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: claim “is ‘statutorily constrained’ by section 768.0755, Florida Statutes.” Welch v. CHLN, Inc., 357 So… and should have taken action to remedy it.” § 768.0755(1), Fla. Stat. As Judge Mizelle recently

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

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-02-22T00:00:00-08:00

Snippet: therefore foreseeable. § 768.0755(1), Fla. Stat. (2019). “Section 768.0755 specifically places the burden…element is ‘statutorily constrained’ by section 768.0755, Florida Statutes.” Welch, 357 So. 3d at 1278 …3d 275, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)). Under Section 768.0755: 4 (1) …element is ‘statutorily constrained’ by section 768.0755, Florida Statutes.” See id. (quoting Encarnacion…regularity and was therefore foreseeable. § 768.0755(1), Fla. Stat. (2018) (emphasis added).

Ana Del Carpio v. Western Beef of Florida, LLC

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-01-03T00:00:00-08:00

Snippet: appellees’ knowledge of the water under section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2018). This appeal followed…, 317 So. 3d 72, 75 (Fla. 2021)). Section 768.0755(1) provides that a person injured in a slip and…with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.” § 768.0755(1)(a)- (b), Fla. Stat. (2018). A plaintiff

Elizabeth Sentz v. Bonefish Grill, LLC

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2023-11-15T00:00:00-08:00

Snippet: business premises cases are governed by section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2020). Pembroke Lakes Mall …and should have taken action to remedy it. § 768.0755(1), Fla. Stat. (2020) (emphasis provided).

WANDA WELCH vs CHLN, INC.

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2023-03-17T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: element is “statutorily constrained” by section 768.0755, Florida Statutes. Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hosps… and was therefore foreseeable. § 768.0755(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). Here, Appellant …time that CHLN should have known about it. See § 768.0755(1)(a), Fla. Stat. “In trying to assess

PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC. v. ERNESTO BLANCO

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2023-01-24T23:53:00-08:00

Snippet: because section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, 2 requires a plaintiff to 2 Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes…establishment.” Santos, 118 So. 3d at 319 (quoting § 768.0755(1)). Here, the Discovery Order is far broader… 5 section 768.0755, negligent mode of operation is not a viable theory… The Florida Legislature enacted section 768.0755 in 2010 to replace section 768.0710, which was…change between sections 768.0710 and 768.0755 concerned prior notice of a dangerous

SARAH BENSALAH v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC.

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2022-05-11T00:53:00-07:00

Snippet: LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2016); Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hosps…establishment is statutorily constrained by section 768.0755 of the Florida Statutes (2013).”); Pembroke Lakes

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

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2021-12-21T23:53:00-08:00

Snippet: premises. § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2010) (emphasis added). Notably, section 768.0755 differs from …” § 768.0755(1), Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added). Instruction 401.20(a) predates 768.0755’s enactment… contended that, to be consistent with section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2014) (discussed below), the…immediately thereafter, the Legislature enacted section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, with an effective date of July…769.0710 was repealed and replaced with section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, which now provides as follows

MANUEL VARGAS v. DOLPHIN MALL ASSOCIATES, LLC

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2021-12-21T23:53:00-08:00

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

SPEEDWAY LLC v. GLORIA CEVALLOS

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2021-12-14T23:53:00-08:00

Snippet: 2d 498, 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2016), governs liability in…regularity and was therefore foreseeable. § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2016). The statute places the burden…dangerous condition. As indicated in section 768.0755, constructive notice may be inferred from either… 8 Section 768.0755 requires the plaintiff to prove the premises owner

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

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2021-09-08T00:53:00-07:00

Snippet: 2 condition. See § 768.0755(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2017);1 Morales v. Ross…impute constructive notice to Ross”) (quoting § 768.0755(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2017)); Encarnacion v. Lifemark…establishment is statutorily constrained by § 768.0755, Fla. Stat.”); Oliver v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc

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

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2020-02-18T23:53:00-08:00

Snippet: 768.0710, Fla. Stat.). But when it enacted section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010)—the current premises …transitory substance. Lago, 233 So. 3d at 1250. Section 768.0755 specifically places the burden on the plaintiff…McGruder, 137 So. 3d 418, 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); § 768.0755(1), Fla. Stat. (“[T]he injured person must prove…. 2d 831, 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)); see also § 768.0755(1)(a)– (b), Fla. Stat. Winn-Dixie trained

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

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 2019-12-05T00:00:00-08:00

Snippet: substances in a business establishment, see F.S. 768.0755 and cases interpreting it.” No amendments were…establishments, and the 2010 enactment of section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, which now governs such claims…substances in a business establishment, see F.S. 768.0755 and cases interpreting it. b. Landowner or

Khorran v. Harbor Freight Tools USA

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2018-06-27T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 251 So. 3d 962

Snippet: fall on a transitory foreign substance. See § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2010); Kenz v. Miami-Dade Cty., 116

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

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2018-06-20T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 246 So. 3d 568

Snippet: of Miami, 208 So.3d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ; § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2014). Nos. 3D17–2558 &