PERSONAL INJURY | PREMISES LIABILITY | SLIP AND FALL | FLORIDA LAW UPDATE | FEBRUARY 2026
First District Court of Appeal reverses summary judgment, holding that surveillance footage showing employees near hazard for nearly eight minutes raises genuine dispute about store’s knowledge.
Published: February 20, 2026
Case: Mamadou Ouedraogo v. Walmart Stores East, LP
Court: Florida First District Court of Appeal
Decision Date: February 18, 2026
The Applicable Law
Under Florida law, business owners owe a duty to their customers to exercise reasonable care in maintaining their premises in a safe condition. When you’re lawfully on someone else’s property as an invited customer (called an “invitee” in legal terms), the property owner must protect you from dangerous conditions they know about or should know about.
Florida Statute § 768.0755(1) specifically addresses slip and fall cases involving transitory foreign objects like spilled liquids, dropped food, or debris on floors. The law states that an injured person must prove the business had “actual or constructive knowledge” of the dangerous condition. Actual knowledge means they directly knew about it. Constructive knowledge means they should have known about it through reasonable care.
Key Legal Rule: Constructive knowledge can be proven by showing either: (1) the dangerous condition existed long enough that ordinary care should have discovered it, or (2) the condition occurred regularly and was therefore foreseeable.
What Happened in This Case
According to the facts described in the court’s opinion, the plaintiff slipped and fell on a banana peel inside the entrance of a Walmart store. The record reflected that the plaintiff was a customer lawfully on the premises when the incident occurred.
In opposing the store’s motion for summary judgment, the evidence described in the court’s opinion included surveillance footage and photographs showing the banana peel remained on Walmart’s floor for almost eight minutes before the fall occurred. The record also showed that several employees were nearby during that time period, with at least one employee walking directly past the banana peel.
The plaintiff also submitted deposition testimony from a Walmart employee who had been working as a customer host at the store entrance on the day of the incident. According to the court’s description of this testimony, the employee stated that both she and another employee had been working as hosts that day, and she was in the vicinity to witness the aftermath of the fall.
Despite this evidence, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Walmart. The trial judge found that “though employees were arguably near the banana peel, it would be unreasonable to assume the employees would be able to observe and notice the banana peel, as doing so would have required them to turn their heads at least 90 degrees. The fact that the banana peel was on the floor for just under 8 minutes, is irrelevant.”
The Court’s Analysis
Standard for Summary Judgment
The First District Court of Appeal reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo, meaning they looked at it fresh without giving deference to the lower court’s ruling. The court explained that under Florida’s adopted federal summary judgment standard, a judge must grant summary judgment only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Importantly, the court emphasized that “inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” This means when there’s conflicting evidence or room for different interpretations, the court must assume the facts favor the injured person, not the business.
Duty Owed to Store Customers
The appellate court reaffirmed that Florida law is clear: “a premises owner owes a duty to its invitees to exercise reasonable care to maintain its premises in a safe condition.” The court noted that “the existence of a transitory foreign object such as a banana peel on the floor is not a safe condition.”
Core Principle: Businesses cannot simply ignore hazards on their floors. They have an affirmative duty to discover and remove dangerous conditions within a reasonable time.
Constructive Knowledge Analysis
The court found that the plaintiff had made “a sufficient showing to support the element of constructive knowledge.” The decision highlighted two key pieces of evidence:
1. Employee Proximity: “He provided direct evidence that there were several employees in the area where the banana peel was located and that one employee walked right past it.”
2. Duration on Floor: The banana peel remained visible for almost eight minutes before the fall.
The court cited Markowitz v. Helen Homes of Kendall Corp., explaining that “it was error to grant summary judgment where a question was sufficiently raised as to whether the business had constructive knowledge of the unsafe condition as there was evidence of employees in the vicinity where the invitee’s fall occurred.”
Trial Judge Cannot Decide Duration Questions
Perhaps most significantly for future cases, the appellate court ruled that trial judges cannot decide as a matter of law whether the time a hazard existed on the floor is sufficient to create constructive knowledge. The court stated: “a trial judge cannot conclude as a matter of law whether the duration of which an object was on the floor is sufficient to create an issue of fact because that is a question within the jury’s province.”
The court referenced Montgomery v. Florida Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., which held that where there was evidence a “foreign substance had been on the floor for a sufficient length of time to charge the store owner with constructive knowledge of its presence, the trial court properly submitted the question of defendant’s negligence to the jury.”
Critical Distinction: Questions about whether a hazard existed long enough for the store to discover it must go to a jury, not be decided by a judge on summary judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long does something have to be on a store floor before the store should know about it?
There’s no magic number of minutes or hours. This case shows that even eight minutes can be enough to create a jury question, especially when employees are working nearby. Each case depends on factors like the location of the hazard, how visible it was, employee patrol schedules, and how busy the area was. The key is whether a reasonable store would have discovered and cleaned up the hazard in that time period.
What if I slip on something but don’t know how long it was there?
You can still have a case if you can prove the store should have known about the condition through other evidence. For example, if the hazard was in a high-traffic area, if it appeared weathered or tracked around, or if similar incidents happened regularly in that location. Surveillance footage, witness testimony, and store cleaning logs can all help establish how long a condition existed.
Do stores have to constantly patrol for hazards?
Florida law requires stores to exercise “reasonable care” in maintaining safe conditions. This doesn’t mean they must have someone watching every square foot at all times, but they must have reasonable inspection and cleaning procedures. If a store has employees working in an area where a hazard exists for several minutes, that can be evidence they failed to exercise reasonable care.
What should I do if I slip and fall in a store?
Report the incident to store management immediately and ask them to document it. Take photos of the hazard and the surrounding area if possible. Get contact information from any witnesses. Seek medical attention even if you feel okay initially, as some injuries don’t show symptoms right away. Don’t give detailed statements about what happened until you’ve spoken with an attorney, as your words could be used against you later.
Can a store avoid liability by saying their employee couldn’t see the hazard?
Not necessarily. This case shows that courts will look at all the circumstances, including how visible the hazard was, where employees were positioned, and what they reasonably should have observed. A store can’t simply claim their employees weren’t looking in the right direction if a reasonable employee should have noticed an obvious hazard during normal duties.
Have you been injured in a slip and fall?
Slip and fall cases involving transitory objects like food, liquids, or debris require careful investigation and evidence gathering. Stores and their insurance companies often argue that hazards weren’t present long enough for them to discover, but this case shows that even relatively short time periods can create genuine disputes for a jury to resolve.
The experienced premises liability attorneys at Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC understand how to gather and present the evidence needed to prove a store had constructive knowledge of dangerous conditions. We work with surveillance footage experts, interview witnesses, and build compelling cases that demonstrate when businesses failed in their duty to maintain safe premises.
Contact Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC today for a free consultation.
Case Reference
Mamadou Ouedraogo v. Walmart Stores East, LP d/b/a Walmart Supercenter Store #1408, No. 1D2023-1238 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 18, 2026).
Applicable Statutes: Florida Statute § 768.0755(1)
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
- Mamadou Ouedraogo v. Walmart Stores East, LP d/b/a Walmart Supercenter Store #1408, No. 1D2023-1238 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 18, 2026)
- Gessner v. S. Co., 396 So. 3d 908, 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
- Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315, 330 (Fla. 2001)
- Markowitz v. Helen Homes of Kendall Corp., 826 So. 2d 256, 259 (Fla. 2002)
- Montgomery v. Fla. Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., 281 So. 2d 302, 306 (Fla. 1973)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)
- In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.150, 309 So. 3d 192, 193 (Fla. 2020)
Source URL: https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2485091/opinion/Opinion_2023-1238.pdf