[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13470

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

VALERIE STRODE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAL-MART STORES, INC., 

n.k.a. Walmart, Inc., 

n.k.a. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 

Defendant-Appellee.

USCA11 Case: 21-13470 Date Filed: 05/24/2022 Page: 1 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13470

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cv-00669-JLB-NPM

____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Valerie Strode appeals the summary judgment in favor of 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The district court ruled that Strode failed to 

prove that Walmart had constructive notice of a liquid on its floor 

that caused Strode to slip and fall, which served as the basis for her 

negligence claim against Walmart. See Fla. Stat. § 768.0755(1). We 

affirm.

One evening, Strode and her adult son visited a Walmart 

store in Fort Myers, Florida, where she regularly shopped. As 

Strode’s son pushed a grocery cart through a main aisle containing 

large product displays and pallets of goods, Strode slid on one foot 

and fell. According to Strode, the area had been free of substances

during her past visits, it was not raining that day, and neither she 

nor her son noticed anything on the floor before she fell. Strode’s 

son located a Walmart associate, and after he helped his mother 

stand up, the two of them observed a small amount of “orange-ish” 

liquid on the floor that had smeared “about a foot.” The liquid 

USCA11 Case: 21-13470 Date Filed: 05/24/2022 Page: 2 of 8
21-13470 Opinion of the Court 3

contained track marks consistent with and debris transferred from 

Strode’s flip-flop.

Although a product display blocked a view of Strode’s fall, 

video footage from two surveillance cameras recorded a Walmart

stockboy working in the main aisle up to 16 seconds before Strode’s 

fall. The stockboy moved pallets of goods and restocked shelves.

The surveillance cameras also recorded customers shopping 

in the main aisle without incident. One customer pushed his shopping cart through the area 11 seconds before Strode arrived. A still 

image of the customer was blurred but showed an object lying in 

the child seat of the cart.

Strode filed in a Florida court a complaint against Walmart, 

which removed the action to federal court based on diversity of 

citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Strode complained that Walmart 

breached its “duty to maintain [its] premises in a reasonably safe 

condition” “and caused [her] to fall as the result of [a] slippery liquid substance on the floor.”

During discovery, Franklin Oliver, a corporate representative for Walmart, and Strode’s son, who Walmart hired as an employee after his mother’s accident, testified that company employees are trained to inspect store floors constantly and are required if 

they see a liquid on the floor to wipe it up or have maintenance 

clean it up. Strode’s son testified that employees are trained “to be 

as vigilant as possible.” 

USCA11 Case: 21-13470 Date Filed: 05/24/2022 Page: 3 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13470

Walmart moved for summary judgment based on Strode’s 

failure to produce evidence that it knew liquid was on its floor. See

Fla. Stat. § 768.0755(1). The company argued that Strode failed to 

identify “what type of liquid [caused her fall], the source of the liquid, or how long it had been there” or “to produce any evidence 

that establishe[d] the length of time the alleged liquid was on the 

floor” or “that would support an inference that the liquid was present for any substantial amount of time to charge Walmart with 

constructive notice.”

The district court entered summary judgment in favor of 

Walmart. The district court ruled that Strode failed to create a 

“genuine issue of material fact as to Walmart’s constructive 

knowledge about the presence of a liquid on the floor where she 

slipped.” After reviewing deposition testimony and the surveillance video recording, the district court found that Walmart “employees working in the area had not inspected the floor before Ms. 

Strode’s accident.” “But [the district court ruled that] evidence of 

Walmart’s employees’ mere failure to conduct an inspection, without more, [did] not carry the day” because “there [was] no evidence 

that whatever liquid Ms. Strode claimed to have slipped on was on 

the floor long enough to establish constructive notice . . . .” The 

district court rejected Strode’s argument that the stockboy overlooked liquid on the floor. Based on the presence of the customer 

with an object in the baby seat moments before Strode’s fall and 

her description of the liquid as marred solely by her, the district 

court determined that no jury could “reasonably infer that liquid 

USCA11 Case: 21-13470 Date Filed: 05/24/2022 Page: 4 of 8
21-13470 Opinion of the Court 5

was on the floor for a sufficient length of time to establish 

Walmart’s constructive knowledge of the liquid.” 

We review de novo a summary judgment. Newcomb v. 

Spring Creek Cooler Inc., 926 F.3d 709, 713 (11th Cir. 2019). “We 

must view all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Id. Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant 

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and 

the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56(a).

Under Florida law, which the parties agree applies, “[a] property owner owes an invitee a duty to use reasonable care in maintaining the property in a reasonably safe condition.” Khorran v. 

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., 251 So. 3d 962, 965 (Fla. Dist. Ct. 

App. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). A business is not 

liable for a foreign substance that causes a customer to slip and fall

“based solely on [its] general failure to maintain the premises.” N. 

Lauderdale Supermkt., Inc. v. Puentes, 332 So. 3d 526, 530 (Fla. 

Dist. Ct. App. 2021). The injured customer must “prove that the 

business establishment had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition before liability may be found.” Id. In Florida, a 

statute governs the duty of a business to its customers to prevent 

slips and falls: 

(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 

USCA11 Case: 21-13470 Date Filed: 05/24/2022 Page: 5 of 8
6 Opinion of the Court 21-13470

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.

Fla. Stat. § 768.0755.

Strode produced no evidence that the liquid remained on 

the floor “for such a length of time that . . . [Walmart] should have 

known” of its existence. See id. Strode maintains that a juror could 

infer that, before her fall as the Walmart stockboy worked in the 

aisle, at least two shoppers walked through and “could [have] . . . 

caused a spill” that the stockboy “should have discovered.” But 

“[a]n inference is not a suspicion or a guess. It is a reasoned, logical 

decision to conclude that a disputed fact exists on the basis of another fact that is known to exist.” Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 

168 (2d Cir. 2007) (cited in Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 

F.3d 744, 754 (11th Cir. 2010)). Strode’s “[s]peculation [about the 

presence of the liquid] does not create a genuine issue of fact; instead, it creates a false issue, the demolition of which is a primary 

goal of summary judgment.” Cordoba v. Dillard’s, Inc., 419 F.3d 

USCA11 Case: 21-13470 Date Filed: 05/24/2022 Page: 6 of 8
21-13470 Opinion of the Court 7

1169, 1181 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hedberg v. Ind. Bell Tel. Co., 

47 F.3d 928, 931–32 (7th Cir. 1995)).

Strode argues that Oliver testified the stockboy “should have 

seen the liquid given the significant amount of time he spent in” 

the aisle, but Strode misrepresents Oliver’s testimony. Oliver affirmed that “if [Walmart employees] cause a liquid [to] spill or anything like that they should immediately clean it up.” And when 

asked if an “associate was in the same area as [where] Miss Strode

fell and if there was liquid on the floor that was his responsibility 

to see it and clean it up,” Oliver responded that, “If it was on the 

floor, yes, and if he saw it, yes, it was his responsibility to clean it 

up or get someone or get maintenance to clean it up.” Oliver also 

responded “Yes” when asked, “Was the Wal-Mart associate stocker 

in the area where Miss Strode fell for a significant amount of time 

so if he was looking he should have seen the liquid on the floor if it 

was there.” As the district court stated, all of Strode’s questions “assume[d] the liquid was on the floor before [the stockboy] left the 

area, not after.” Oliver conceded no wrongdoing by Walmart.

We are unpersuaded by Strode’s argument that the customer who immediately preceded her through the aisle caused her 

fall. Strode argues that the customer “did not have anything in his 

cart to spill” or “contact anything that could have caused a spill.” 

But still images from the video show an object in the child seat of 

the customer’s cart. Strode also argues that, had the customer been 

the source of the liquid, he would have left “an extended trail,” but 

USCA11 Case: 21-13470 Date Filed: 05/24/2022 Page: 7 of 8
8 Opinion of the Court 21-13470

it is just as likely that any liquid from his cart could have left a single 

drop. 

The district court did not err. It correctly disregarded 

Strode’s alleged “inference [that the liquid was on the aisle floor 

long enough for the stockboy to notice as] based on speculation 

and conjecture [and] [a]s not reasonable.” Ave. CLO Fund, Ltd. v. 

Bank of Am., N.A., 723 F.3d 1287, 1294 (11th Cir. 2013). And, in the 

words of the district court, “what little evidence . . . [existed] suggest[ed] . . . the liquid was not on the floor for very long.” Strode 

and her son testified they “didn’t notice anything” on the floor before her fall and that the amount of liquid involved was “small.”

And both mother and son testified that the liquid had smeared 

when she fell and that the liquid was contaminated only with the 

debris deposited by her flip-flop. See Oliver v. Winn-Dixie Stores, 

Inc., 291 So. 3d 126, 129 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020) (concluding that, 

when liquid that caused customer to slip and fall had “no wheel 

tracks,” “[t]his hardly establishes that the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that in the exercise of reasonable care 

the condition would have been known to the defendant.”). Because 

no evidence suggested that the liquid that caused Strode’s fall was

on the ground long enough to impute constructive knowledge to

Walmart, it was entitled to summary judgment.

We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Walmart.

USCA11 Case: 21-13470 Date Filed: 05/24/2022 Page: 8 of 8