Source: https://www.hallandalelaw.com/winn-dixie-cases/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:33:47+00:00

Document:
Below is a sample of some of the slip and fall cases Alan Sackrin has settled and won against Winn Dixie by filing a lawsuit or by pre-lawsuit settlement.
Settlement Amount: $40,000.00 – C.S. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. – While grocery shopping client was hit with a dolly from behind that is used to restock shelves.
Settlement: $25,000.00 – M. M. v. WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.- Slipped & fell on clear liquid on floor while pushing cart, injured lower back, R knee, neck, L shoulder (some injuries may have been preexisting). Plaintiff alleged Winn-Dixie’s failure to keep premises reasonably free from items/substances on floor, failure to warn of dangerous conditions, and negligently maintained equipment.
Settlement: $12,500.00 – M.D. v. Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc.
Settlement: $10,500.00 – D.S. – Winn-Dixie Stores – While grocery shopping, client slipped on an oily substance.
Below are appellate cases involving Winn Dixie and slip and falls in their grocery stores. We believe analyzing these cases gives us a view into how Winn Dixie approaches slip and fall cases.
Customer sued after a slip and fall on a slippery substance on floor. Plaintiff produced no evidence that the store, its agents, or employees caused the substance to be on the floor or had knowledge of its existence prior to the accident. Nor did the customer produce evidence regarding how or when the substance got on the floor or how long it had been there. Verdict was in favor of customer. Reversed upon appeal based on – there was no evidence that store had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition nor evidence as to how long the dangerous condition existed prior to the injury.
Bates v. Winn-Dixie Supermarkets, Inc.
Customer slipped and fell on a banana peel while pushing his cart and shopping. He alleged that the peel, which he claimed was old and black, had been on the floor long enough for store’s employees to have known about it or to have discovered it and that they were negligent in not correcting the dangerous condition. Winn-Dixie moved for summary judgment after filing its Answer and defenses and taking depositions. Their Motion for Summary Judgment was granted by the trial court since Plaintiff failed to show how long the peel had been on the floor. Upon appeal the trial court’s entry of the final Summary Judgment was affirmed because of failure to show evidence of how long the peel had been on the floor or that it was there through negligence of store employees or any act of an outsider.
Woman slipped and fell on a grape while shopping in store. Plaintiff’s theory of negligence was that the store was negligent in its operational procedure in the display and sale of grapes. Defendant denied this and alleged that Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence causing her own injury. Verdict was entered for Plaintiff. Reversed on appeal: no testimony of how grapes came to be on the floor, how long they were there, or who had placed them there. To conclude that the presence of grapes on the floor was a result of operational negligence thru store employees that created the hazard would necessitate conjecture.
A customer slipped and fell in a puddle of milk in the store. Verdict was in customer’s favor. The store appealed and verdict was affirmed. It was plaintiff’s burden to prove that the milk was on the floor sufficiently long to charge Winn-Dixie with notice. Notice may be proved by circumstantial evidence. It has frequently been recognized that the condition of the floor, the nature of the substance on the floor, and the surrounding circumstances, may be sufficient to support an inference by the jury that a dangerous condition existed long enough for the store employees to know, or that they should have known, of the condition.
Plaintiff slipped, fell, and was injured due to a plastic container top, from a six pack of beer, which was on the floor. Plaintiff received a monetary award despite the store’s objection that the evidence was insufficient for jury to impute constructive knowledge of the hazard to the store owner. Winn-Dixie appealed and trials court’s verdict was affirmed. The record reveals that it was commonplace for persons to come into the store and purchase individual cans of beer which they broke out of six packs, which often resulted in the accumulation of excess plastic container tops on the beer shelf. It was also shown that there was no suitable container furnished in the vicinity where trash might be disposed of. Although the manager of the store testified that he was responsible for keeping the premises clean, he had not inspected the area nor where the plaintiff fell for an hour and a half before the accident. Further, an examination of the packaging container which the plaintiff slipped upon revealed that it was filthy and scuffed up. Under these circumstances, it is foreseeable that container tops might end up on the floor, and in the instant case the evidence leads to the reasonable inference that the container that was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury had been on the floor for a sufficient period of time so as to constitute notice.
Gordon v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
Summary Judgment was awarded to Winn Dixie by the trial court. Upon appeal, verdict was reversed and remanded for further proceedings re: whether Winn Dixie had constructive notice of the object upon which Gordon had fallen.
Trapani v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
Vincenzo slipped, fell, and was injured while at Winn Dixie. The Trapani’s claim was for his personal injuries as well as his wife’s consortium claim. Final Summary Judgment was awarded to Winn Dixie by the trial court, and was reversed upon appeal. Winn Dixie failed to file any affidavits or depositions in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.
Cooper v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
Trial court granted a directed verdict to Winn Dixie for Plaintiff’s clip and fall in store on an unknown substance. Upon appeal, Cooper alleged that facts cited as evidence during trial should have been sufficient enough to establish constructive notice to store of condition of color. The appellate court found Cooper did not establish the necessary constructive notice.
TORTS – Slip and Fall. Circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish dangerous condition in store or store’s knowledge of condition.
Trial court found in favor of Plaintiff White and denied Winn Dixie’s Motion for Directed Verdict after she slipped and fell in Winn Dixie and was injured. White fell on an area of the floor in the store near where the floor was being buffed with a machine. White did not find the floor wet nor did she find any other reason for her fall. A witness noticed same. The appellate court found the trial court erred in denying Winn Dixie’s Motion for Directed Verdict. The case was reversed and remanded directing the trial court to enter a verdict in favor of Winn Dixie.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.