PERSONAL INJURY | PREMISES LIABILITY | EVIDENCE SPOLIATION | SLIP AND FALL | JANUARY 2026
Florida appeals court finds trial judge improperly shifted burden of proof to defendant after video evidence was destroyed, highlighting critical procedural protections in premises liability cases.
Published: January 15, 2026
Case: Walgreens Co. v. Chaux
Court: Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Decision Date: January 14, 2026
The Law on Evidence Spoliation in Florida
When a business destroys or fails to preserve evidence that could be crucial to a personal injury case, Florida courts can impose sanctions called “spoliation” penalties. These sanctions are designed to level the playing field when important evidence disappears.
Florida Standard Jury Instructions provide two main types of spoliation sanctions:
1. Adverse Inference (Instruction 301.11(a)): The jury may infer that missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the party who destroyed it
2. Burden-Shifting Presumption (Instruction 301.11(b)): The jury should find that the injured person proved an element of their case unless the defendant proves otherwise
Key Legal Rule: Courts must give defendants proper notice before imposing burden-shifting sanctions that change who has to prove what at trial. Springing this type of sanction on a defendant after they’ve already presented their case violates due process rights.
What Happened in This Case
According to the facts described in the court’s opinion, the plaintiff fell unconscious in the checkout lane of her neighborhood Walgreens store. The evidence described in the court’s opinion was that a Walgreens employee found her lying on her back, unconscious on the floor. The store manager called 911, and the plaintiff was transported to the hospital where she remained for over three months due to a brain injury from the fall.
Five days after the incident, according to the record, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter requesting that Walgreens preserve any surveillance video of the incident, including three hours before and after. The plaintiff’s counsel also went to the store and asked to see video from a security camera above the cash register. The store manager directed him to contact Walgreens’ claims administrator, Sedgwick Claims Management Services.
The allegations in the case were that Sedgwick replied that “the area of the incident within the store was not captured on video” and maintained that the plaintiff “experienced a seizure and therefore was not injured as a result of any liability on the store.” Later, Walgreens’ counsel stated that the incident was not captured on video and “there is no store video.”
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging she “slipped and fell injuring her head” because Walgreens “created a dangerous condition by allowing its floor to become inherently slippery and/or allowing a foreign substance to remain on the floor.” She also alleged that if Walgreens failed to preserve the video footage, she would be “entitled to the imposition of a negative inference.”
After a five-day trial, the record reflected that the jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor and awarded damages of $5,547,733.
The Court’s Analysis
Improper Jury Instruction on Missing Video Evidence
The court found that the trial judge made a critical error in how he instructed the jury about the missing surveillance video. Initially, the judge indicated he would give only an “adverse inference” instruction, telling the jury they could infer the missing video would have been unfavorable to Walgreens.
However, after both sides had finished presenting their evidence, the trial court gave a much stronger instruction. The court told the jury: “Because Walgreens failed to maintain the security video evidence, there is a presumption that the video evidence would have been unfavorable to defendant Walgreens, you should find that Chaux established an element of her claim, notice of constructive notice of a foreign substance unless Walgreens proves otherwise by the greater weight of the evidence.”
The appeals court explained this was fundamentally unfair: “The trial court’s imposition of a burden-shifting sanction after Walgreens rested its case and contrary to its pre-trial announcement, resulted in Walgreens having defended against [the plaintiff’s] claim that it was negligent in causing her to slip and fall without notice that the burden was on it to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that it had no actual or constructive notice of a foreign substance on the checkout lane floor.”
Key Distinction: There’s a crucial difference between telling a jury they may infer missing evidence was bad for the defendant versus telling them they should find the plaintiff proved part of her case unless the defendant proves otherwise.
Improper Exclusion of Medical Expert Testimony
Walgreens had disclosed Dr. David Goldstein, an internal medicine physician, as an expert witness. According to the evidence described in the court’s opinion, Dr. Goldstein reviewed the plaintiff’s medical records, examination reports, fire rescue reports, and depositions. Based on this review, he concluded that the plaintiff “was having likely [an alcohol] withdrawal seizure. The withdrawal seizure would cause her to lose consciousness and fall backwards.”
The trial court excluded Dr. Goldstein’s testimony, stating it was “pure speculation” and “not an opinion that is based upon any scientific principle.”
The appeals court disagreed, finding that Dr. Goldstein’s opinion was based on extensive medical evidence:
- Medical records showing an alcohol level was ordered and thiamine was administered when the plaintiff arrived at the hospital
- The significance that thiamine is given “if there’s any suspicion or possibility of alcohol-related seizure or alcohol withdrawal”
- Variations in the plaintiff’s liver levels between the day of the incident and prior medical records
- The fact that the plaintiff had no alcohol in her system on the day of the incident
- The plaintiff’s husband reporting to physicians that she had a history of alcoholism
- The plaintiff’s flu symptoms for two days before the fall, which is consistent with having a seizure
The court concluded: “Because Dr. Goldstein’s opinion that [the plaintiff’s] fall was likely the result of an alcohol withdrawal seizure was ‘the product of reliable principles and methods,’ we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding his expert testimony under Daubert.”
Expert Testimony Standard: Under Florida’s Daubert standard, expert testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data, be the product of reliable principles and methods, and the expert must have applied those principles reliably to the case facts.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I still win my slip-and-fall case if the store destroyed surveillance video?
Yes, you may still be able to win, and the destruction of video evidence can actually help your case. Florida courts can give jury instructions that allow jurors to infer the missing video would have shown the store was at fault. However, as this case shows, the specific type of instruction matters greatly, and proper legal procedures must be followed.
What should I do immediately after a slip-and-fall accident at a business?
Document everything you can and contact an attorney as soon as possible. Your lawyer should immediately send a “preservation letter” to the business demanding they preserve all surveillance video, incident reports, maintenance records, and other evidence. The sooner this happens, the better your chances of preserving crucial evidence.
How do courts decide whether to exclude expert medical testimony?
Florida courts use the Daubert standard, which requires that expert testimony be based on sufficient facts or data, use reliable scientific principles and methods, and that the expert properly applied those methods to your specific case. Courts look at the expert’s methodology, not just their conclusions. An expert who thoroughly reviews medical records and applies accepted medical principles is more likely to be allowed to testify.
What happens when an appeals court reverses a jury verdict like this?
When an appeals court reverses and remands for a new trial, it means the case goes back to the trial court to be tried again from the beginning. The original jury verdict is thrown out, and a new jury will hear the case. This gives both sides another chance to present their evidence under the correct legal standards.
The Importance of Proper Legal Procedures
This case demonstrates how critical proper legal procedures are in personal injury litigation. Even when a plaintiff suffers severe injuries and wins a substantial jury verdict, procedural errors can result in the entire case being thrown out and retried.
The appeals court’s decision protects an important principle: defendants have the right to know what they need to prove at trial before they present their case. When courts change the rules mid-trial without proper notice, it violates fundamental due process rights.
For injured people, this case highlights why having experienced legal representation is crucial. A skilled attorney will know how to properly request spoliation sanctions, preserve expert testimony, and navigate the complex procedural requirements that can make or break a case.
About Maderal Byrne & Furst
Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC is a Miami-based personal injury law firm. We encourage you to learn more about our firm, meet our attorneys, explore our other practice areas, view our results or see our rating and reviews on Google.
Contact Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC today for a free consultation.
Case Reference
Walgreens Co. v. Chaux, Nos. 3D24-0288 & 3D24-0761 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 14, 2026)
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This blog post is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The law is subject to change, and the application of legal principles varies depending on the specific facts of each case. If you have questions about your specific situation, you should consult a licensed Florida attorney. This post discusses legal concepts and principles addressed in the cited court opinion and context of that opinion. It is not intended to make any assertions about the truth of any allegations or evidence relating to any party to that case.
Citations & Sources
- Walgreens Co. v. Chaux, Nos. 3D24-0288 & 3D24-0761 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 14, 2026)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 597 (1993)
- Graham Cos. v. Amado, 305 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Lewis v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 420 So. 3d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
- Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Burns, 402 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
- Florida Standard Jury Instructions 301.11(a) and 301.11(b)
- Section 90.702, Florida Statutes
Source: https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2483650/opinion/Opinion_2024-0288.pdf