Hollywood, FL Slip and Fall Lawyer

Hollywood Slip and Fall & Premises Liability Lawyer

25+ Years in Practice | Million-Dollar Jury Trial Experience | Former Insurance-Defense Attorney​

​​​

One moment you are shopping, entering your condominium, walking through a hotel, crossing a parking lot; the next, you are in pain and may not even know what caused you to fall. Medical bills begin to accumulate, work becomes difficult, and uncertainty quickly follows. At the same time, the business, property owner, or insurance carrier may already be investigating the accident and preparing to argue that it lacked notice—or that you were responsible. The evidence that can prove what really happened may disappear quickly.

The sections below are meant to be comprehensive, explain what Florida law requires, how liability can be established even when you did not see the hazard, and the steps you can take now to protect your claim. If you slipped, tripped, or fell on someone else’s property in Hollywood, Florida, you may have a claim for compensation—but only if the available evidence proves the required legal elements. An injury on another person’s property does not automatically establish negligence. A Florida slip-and-fall claim ordinarily requires proof that the defendant owed a duty of reasonable care, breached that duty, caused the accident, and caused legally recoverable injuries and damages. Premises-liability cases also require identifying who possessed or controlled the accident location and whether that party knew or should have known about the dangerous condition.

A fall is one type of Hollywood personal injury claim, but Florida premises-liability law imposes proof requirements that do not arise in every injury case. The type of condition—temporary substance, permanent defect, exterior surface, stairway, or obstructed path—can determine which notice and maintenance rules apply. Daniel B Reinfeld, PA represents people seriously injured in slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall accidents throughout Hollywood, Broward County, and South Florida. With more than 25 years of litigation experience and approximately six years of prior insurance-defense experience, Dan understands how insurers investigate falls, dispute notice, blame footwear, challenge medical causation, and seek summary judgment when critical evidence is missing. Dan personally handles each accepted case from the initial consultation through settlement or trial.

What You Have to Prove in a Florida Slip-and-Fall Case

A successful premises-liability case requires more than proving that a fall occurred. The evidence must answer several connected questions: What caused the fall? Where exactly did it happen? Who controlled that area? Why was the condition unreasonably dangerous? Did the defendant create the condition or have actual or constructive knowledge of it? Did the condition legally cause the claimed injuries? A claim may fail if the evidence answers only some of these questions. Proof that water was on the floor does not necessarily establish how long it was there. Proof that a business failed to follow an internal inspection policy does not necessarily prove that a particular spill existed long enough to be discovered. Likewise, proof of a serious injury does not establish what caused the fall. A prompt investigation must develop the dangerous condition, notice, control, causation, and damages together.

​

Duty and Breach: What Does a Property Owner Owe an Invitee?

A customer entering a supermarket, restaurant, retail store, hotel, office, or other business for its intended purpose is generally a business invitee. A property owner or occupier ordinarily owes an invitee two related but independent duties: a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and a duty to warn of concealed dangers that are known or should be known to the owner but are not known to the invitee. The duty to maintain may include conducting reasonable inspections, correcting dangerous conditions, selecting appropriate walking surfaces, providing adequate lighting, keeping customer paths clear, and responding reasonably to reported hazards. Breach depends on the circumstances. The issue is not whether the property could have been made perfectly safe. The question is whether the responsible party failed to use reasonable care under the conditions that actually existed.

​

Who Is Responsible: Property Owner, Lessor, Lessee, or Manager?

Ownership of the deed does not always identify the party responsible for an unsafe condition. Liability frequently follows possession, control, maintenance responsibility, and the conduct that created or allowed the hazard.

A commercial tenant may control the interior of a store or restaurant while the landlord controls the parking lot, roof, structural components, or common walkways. An apartment or condominium association may control elevators, stairways, landscaping, sidewalks, and other common areas. A property-management company, maintenance contractor, cleaning service, paving company, landscaper, or construction contractor may also have relevant responsibilities.

The lease, management agreement, maintenance contract, condominium documents, work orders, and the parties’ actual practices should be examined. A contractual allocation of responsibility may affect indemnity between defendants, but it does not necessarily resolve every duty owed to an injured visitor. Residential landlords have additional duties under Florida law. In Mansur v. Eubanks, the Florida Supreme Court held that a residential landlord must reasonably inspect before transferring possession and make necessary repairs to provide a reasonably safe dwelling, subject to applicable agreements and waivers. After possession is transferred, a landlord may have a continuing duty to exercise reasonable care concerning dangerous defective conditions after receiving notice. Potential liability can therefore depend on whether the accident occurred inside a leased unit, in a common area, or because of a structural or building system controlled by someone else.

​

What Counts as a Dangerous Condition?

A dangerous condition is not defined solely by whether someone fell. Courts consider the nature of the condition, its location, dimensions, visibility, duration, surrounding environment, expected pedestrian traffic, applicable safety requirements, and whether a reasonable property operator should have corrected it.

Potential dangerous conditions include spilled food or drinks, grease, soap, ice, garbage, packaging, produce, leaking containers, refrigeration water, tracked-in rain, loose mats, torn carpeting, cords, pallets, merchandise, broken pavement, potholes, uneven pavers, unexpected changes in elevation, defective thresholds, unstable handrails, nonuniform stairs, inadequate lighting, drainage problems, algae, and surfaces that become unusually slippery when wet.

The condition must also be connected to the accident. A code violation elsewhere on the property or a puddle several feet away does not establish liability unless the evidence connects that condition to the claimant’s fall.

​

Slip-and-Fall Versus Trip-and-Fall Claims

The way the accident happened can determine which legal and factual issues control the claim. A slip generally involves a loss of traction caused by water, grease, food, soap, a smooth coating, or another slippery condition. A trip commonly involves a raised edge, pothole, cracked surface, misplaced object, loose mat, defective step, or unexpected change in elevation. The distinction is important because a temporary spill in a business establishment ordinarily triggers Florida’s statutory actual-or-constructive-knowledge requirement. A fixed structural defect may instead focus on who controlled the property, how long the defect existed, whether it violated an applicable code, and whether the owner reasonably inspected and maintained the area. The label is less important than the actual mechanism. Photographs, video, shoe marks, body position, witness testimony, medical histories, and scene measurements may help determine whether a foot slipped, caught, rolled, or encountered an unexpected change in level.

​

What If the Injured Person Does Not Know Where or Why the Fall Happened?

Not seeing the hazard before falling is different from having no evidence of what caused the fall. A person may first observe water, food, debris, or a broken surface while lying on the ground. A head injury, loss of consciousness, pain, embarrassment, or emergency treatment may also make the first moments after a fall difficult to remember.

The cause may still be established through witnesses, surveillance video, photographs, an incident report, employee statements, marks on the floor, residue on shoes, liquid or stains on clothing, the position of the person’s body, or expert examination.

In Sutton v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, the customer did not see the grape before she fell. Afterward, she observed a dirty, squished grape, juice, footprints, and a track mark. The Eleventh Circuit held that this circumstantial evidence created a jury question concerning constructive knowledge under Florida law. There is an important difference, however, between not seeing a hazard before the fall and being unable to identify any hazard after a complete investigation. If the injured person does not know where the fall occurred, cannot say whether a foot slipped or caught on something, and no witness, video, photograph, physical evidence, or property condition supplies the answer, the claim may depend on speculation. In Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Schmidt, 509 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), the customer believed she might have slipped on grease because there was a greasy stain on her skirt. No one saw anything on the floor, however, and there was no evidence of a recent spill. The stain did not independently establish the dangerous condition, causation, duration, or Publix’s notice. In Medina v. Casino Miami, LLC, the Third District reaffirmed that the mere occurrence of an accident does not create an inference of negligence. Evidence must establish an unreasonable hazard and connect it to the fall. An injured person should never guess, embellish, or adopt someone else’s explanation. An honest inability to remember may sometimes be addressed through investigation. An inconsistent account created after the fact can seriously damage credibility.

​

Reconstructing the Exact Location of a Fall

When a client cannot immediately identify the precise aisle, entrance, parking space, stairway, or section of a property, the location may sometimes be reconstructed. Receipts and credit-card records can establish the time of a purchase. Loyalty-account data, photographs, cellphone metadata, 911 records, fire-rescue reports, employee assignments, store diagrams, and surveillance cameras may identify the person’s route and the area where assistance was provided. The precise location matters. It can determine which owner, tenant, association, manager, maintenance company, or contractor controlled the area. It also determines which cameras, inspection records, work orders, earlier incidents, and employees may be relevant. A preservation notice should identify the date, approximate time, entrance used, route through the property, point of purchase, responding employees, emergency response, and suspected accident area as accurately as the available evidence permits. When the initial request is necessarily broad, it may need to be supplemented as additional information becomes available.

​

Transitory Foreign Substances in a Business Establishment

A transitory foreign substance is a temporary material that is not ordinarily part of the walking surface. Water, grease, soap, beverages, ice, dropped food, produce, sand, and debris are common examples. Under Florida Statute § 768.0755, a person who slips on a transitory foreign substance in a business establishment must prove that the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken action to remedy it. This statutory notice requirement does not necessarily govern a case involving a permanent defect such as a broken step, improper slope, defective handrail, dangerous floor treatment, or long-standing change in elevation. Those cases may instead depend on common-law duties, building codes, maintenance, control, and notice of the fixed condition.

​

Actual Knowledge

Actual knowledge may be established when an employee saw the substance, received a complaint about it, was told about a prior fall, placed a warning cone near it, began cleaning it, or personally created or contributed to the condition.

Witness testimony, employee communications, incident reports, cleaning records, and surveillance video may establish what the business knew before the fall. A defendant’s general awareness that spills can happen is different from actual knowledge of the particular condition that caused the accident.

​

Constructive Knowledge

Constructive knowledge does not require proof that an employee admits seeing the hazard. Section 768.0755 permits constructive knowledge to be proved through circumstantial evidence showing either that the condition existed long enough that the business should have discovered it through ordinary care or that the condition occurred with such regularity that it was foreseeable. Evidence bearing on the age of a substance may include dirt, footprints, shopping-cart tracks, scuffing, drying around the edges, melting ice, changes in consistency, a trail of drops, a slow leak, or a large puddle that could not reasonably have formed all at once. Surveillance footage, the timing and quality of the last inspection, employee proximity, and the source of the substance may provide additional evidence. A liquid’s appearance must be evaluated carefully. Describing water as dirty does not automatically prove that it was present for a long time because the dirt may have come from the claimant’s own shoe. Conversely, the absence of dirt does not always prove that a large puddle appeared seconds before the fall. The complete physical and circumstantial evidence must be considered together.

​

How Long Must a Spill Have Been on the Floor?

Florida law does not establish a fixed number of minutes. Time is considered with the location, visibility, source and size of the condition, employee proximity, inspection activity, and other physical evidence.

In Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Safonte, a yogurt spill existed for approximately two minutes while an employee stocked shelves nearby with his back toward it. The Fourth District held that the evidence did not establish actual or constructive knowledge—even though yogurt was found on the claimant’s clothing afterward.

In Ouedraogo v. Walmart Stores East, LP, surveillance footage showed a banana peel on the floor for almost eight minutes, several employees nearby, and one employee walking directly past it. The First District held that this evidence created a jury question concerning constructive knowledge.

In Christie v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., decided in 2026, evidence included a puddle described as approximately four feet by four feet, water drops along the water-and-soda aisle, a leaking stocking float, and a Publix employee working nearby. Considered together, those facts created a jury question concerning constructive knowledge even though no witness could identify the exact moment when the water reached the floor.

These cases do not create a two-minute, eight-minute, or fifteen-minute rule. They show why a time estimate becomes meaningful only when it is evaluated with the surrounding evidence.

​

Mode of Operation Versus a Regularly Recurring Condition

Florida used to recognize a broader negligent-mode-of-operation theory in certain slip-and-fall cases. Under the current statute, it is not enough to argue generally that a supermarket uses self-service displays, a restaurant serves drinks, or a store receives heavy customer traffic. As the Third District explained in Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Blanco, negligent mode of operation is no longer an independent substitute for proving actual or constructive knowledge of a transitory foreign substance. That does not eliminate the statute’s recurring-condition provision. Specific evidence that the same dangerous condition repeatedly occurred in the same area may establish that the condition occurred with regularity and was foreseeable. Examples include a refrigeration unit that repeatedly leaked into an aisle, floral buckets that regularly left water in the same customer path, an entrance that consistently accumulated tracked-in rainwater, or a recurring roof or plumbing leak documented in work orders and complaints. The distinction is between a general possibility and a demonstrated pattern. Saying that spills sometimes happen in supermarkets is ordinarily not enough. Evidence that employees repeatedly cleaned the same type of spill from the same location, knew about the underlying source, or received earlier complaints can be significantly more probative.

​

Cleaning, Inspection, and Maintenance Records

Inspection and maintenance records can show when the area was last examined, who was responsible, what was observed, and whether a reported condition was corrected. Relevant documents may include sweep sheets, electronic inspection records, cleaning schedules, employee assignments, work orders, repair invoices, maintenance contracts, safety audits, refrigeration records, and communications concerning leaks or flooring problems.

A completed inspection form does not conclusively prove that the inspection occurred or that it was reasonable. Video may show that the employee never entered the area, walked past the condition, or completed several inspection entries at once. Conversely, a recent inspection supported by video may substantially weaken a notice claim.

A company’s internal inspection policy is relevant but does not automatically establish Florida’s legal standard of care. A policy may require more than ordinary care, and a technical policy violation must still be connected to the accident.

Indoor Falls, Store Aisles, and Employee Activity

Indoor retail cases require close attention to the exact aisle and the activities taking place there. Water near a refrigerated case, dropped produce in a grocery aisle, detergent near a leaking container, or liquid surrounding an employee’s stocking cart may point toward the source and duration of the hazard.

Photographs should capture the substance itself, its size, color, texture, location, footprints, wheel marks, nearby merchandise, shelving, equipment, warning signs, and the broader customer path. The investigation should identify employees working in or passing through the area, whether merchandise was being stocked, whether a vendor was present, and whether the condition was visible from an employee’s position.

An employee’s presence nearby does not automatically establish constructive notice. It becomes more significant when the condition was visible, the employee had an unobstructed view, or the employee’s work was connected to the source of the spill.

​

Rainwater Inside a Business

Rainwater tracked through an entrance can qualify as a transitory foreign substance. Proof that it was raining, however, does not by itself establish how long a particular puddle had been on an indoor floor.

Relevant evidence may include the duration and intensity of the rain, weather data tied to the property, saturated or displaced entrance mats, footprints and cart tracks, the distance water had been tracked into the building, prior complaints, inspection frequency, employee assignments, warning cones, surveillance video, and whether the entrance routinely accumulated water during storms. In McCarthy v. Broward College, 164 So. 3d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), evidence that it had rained several miles away did not establish that rain fell at the accident site or that rainwater entered the elevator where the plaintiff fell. The surrounding walkway was dry. The decision illustrates why weather evidence must be connected to the actual property, accident location, and relevant time.

​

Fixed Defects, Exterior Walkways, Stairs, and Ramps

Cases involving permanent or recurring property conditions require a different investigation from a temporary spill. The focus may include design, construction, inspection, maintenance, repairs, drainage, lighting, code compliance, and the length of time the condition existed.

​

Known Dangerous Conditions and Latent Defects

A known dangerous condition is one the responsible party actually recognized through an employee’s observation, a complaint, a repair request, an earlier accident, an inspection, or its own conduct.

A latent defect is a danger that is not readily discoverable through ordinary observation. Examples may include a loose stair component, concealed flooring failure, handrail that appears secure but is not properly anchored, or hidden structural or drainage defect. The distinction matters because a defendant may argue that the claimant should have seen an obvious condition, while a claimant may show that the dangerous feature was concealed by lighting, shadows, foliage, floor patterns, merchandise, crowd movement, or its physical design.

​

Falls on Rain-Exposed Pavement and Exterior Walkways

An outdoor walkway is not automatically defective merely because it becomes wet during a Florida rainstorm. The investigation should determine whether the surface was reasonably safe for its intended and foreseeable wet use.

Potential issues include improper drainage, standing water, excessive slope, algae or mildew, worn texture, smooth paint or sealant, accumulated sand, deteriorated concrete, mismatched surface materials, recurring roof runoff, and coatings that become dangerously slippery when wet. Prior complaints, cleaning practices, pressure-washing records, repair history, building plans, and photographs taken during comparable weather may be important.

Outdoor and indoor rain cases therefore present different questions. An indoor case may focus primarily on how long tracked-in water remained on the floor and whether it regularly accumulated. An exterior-surface case may also involve whether the pavement, coating, drainage, or maintenance made the walkway unreasonably dangerous when wet.

​

Building Codes and Property-Safety Standards

Building and accessibility codes can provide objective measurements for stairs, ramps, handrails, guards, changes in elevation, accessible routes, walking surfaces, thresholds, landings, and lighting. The applicable code may depend on when the property was constructed or altered, the building’s use, permits, prior renovations, and any legally recognized exceptions. A current code provision does not automatically apply retroactively to every older structure.

In Sutley v. The Ocean Trillium Suites, Inc., the Fifth District held that expert evidence of a building-code violation involving an abrupt change in elevation between a sidewalk and ramp was sufficient to create a premises-maintenance issue despite the defense’s open-and-obvious argument. Florida decisions describe a proven applicable building-code violation as potential prima facie evidence of negligence, but applicability and causation must still be established.

Permits, approved plans, certificates of occupancy, inspection records, code-enforcement files, measurements, and qualified expert analysis may all become important.

​

ADA Requirements, Slopes, Ramps, and Accessible Routes

The 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design address accessible routes, ramps, slopes, cross-slopes, landings, floor surfaces, stairs, and other features. The standards generally distinguish ordinary walking surfaces from ramps and impose requirements concerning maximum slopes and accessible design. An ADA or accessibility issue does not automatically establish a personal-injury claim. The provision must apply to the property, relate to the dangerous condition, and have a causal connection to the accident. Florida accessibility and building-code provisions may also apply independently. Floor patterns, low color contrast, glare, shadows, landscaping, merchandise, or foliage may camouflage a curb, step, ramp edge, or change in elevation. A technically measurable condition can become more dangerous when its visual presentation makes it difficult to perceive.

​

Steps, Open Risers, Nosings, and Grip Surfaces

Stairway cases may involve unequal riser heights, inadequate tread depth, open risers, loose or rounded nosings, missing handrails, defective guards, inadequate landings, poor lighting, worn grip surfaces, or an unexpected isolated step. Measurements should be taken before repairs are performed. Photographs should show the entire stairway, direction of travel, lighting, handrails, nearby doors, floor patterns, and the specific tread or riser involved.

Orange paint, reflective tape, or another contrasting treatment may provide a warning, but it is not an automatic defense. The treatment may be faded, obscured, placed in the wrong location, or insufficient to address a structural defect. It may also show that the owner recognized the feature required special attention.

​

Coefficient-of-Friction and Slip-Resistance Testing

The coefficient of friction, or COF, is a measurement used to evaluate the slip resistance between a walking surface and another material. Depending on the circumstances, a qualified engineer or walkway-safety expert may conduct static or dynamic coefficient-of-friction testing under dry, wet, or contaminated conditions. A COF result is not a universal liability score. The testing device, protocol, direction of travel, surface material, contaminant, footwear interface, applicable industry standard, and similarity between the tested conditions and the accident conditions all matter. The U.S. Access Board’s guidance explains that the ADA Standards require accessible surfaces to be slip resistant but do not establish one minimum COF number for every surface or testing method. In Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., a maritime slip-and-fall decision, the Eleventh Circuit explained that a qualified expert using reliable testing methods may provide helpful testimony concerning a surface’s slip resistance. The court also recognized that later testing may remain relevant when the surface and testing conditions are shown to be substantially similar. Because Sorrels involved maritime law and a cruise-ship deck, it should not be treated as establishing one numerical standard for every Florida property.

COF testing may help prove that a permanent surface or coating was dangerously slippery. In a case involving a temporary puddle or spill, however, proof that the floor was slippery does not replace the separate statutory requirement of proving the business’s actual or constructive knowledge of the substance.

​

Evidence That Can Prove Liability and Notice

The strongest evidence ordinarily connects the dangerous condition, the defendant’s knowledge or responsibility, the mechanism of the fall, and the resulting injuries. No single photograph, stain, record, or test guarantees recovery.

Potential evidence includes surveillance video, scene photographs, witness testimony, incident reports, 911 and fire-rescue records, shoes and clothing, receipts establishing the time of the visit, inspection logs, cleaning records, employee schedules, earlier complaints, prior incidents, repair records, work orders, maintenance contracts, leases, building plans, permits, code-enforcement records, weather information, and expert measurements or testing.

​

Why Immediate Investigation Matters

Businesses may clean a floor within minutes and overwrite surveillance footage within days or weeks. Mats are moved, displays change, pavement is repaired, employees leave, and witnesses become difficult to find.

A prompt investigation may include photographing and measuring the scene, obtaining witness information, identifying employees, requesting the incident report, sending a preservation notice, locating surveillance cameras, preserving shoes and clothing, reviewing weather information, and requesting inspection records, work orders, maintenance contracts, and prior-incident evidence. A person who does not know exactly what caused the fall should not conclude that no evidence exists before these sources are examined. Conversely, a responsible lawyer should explain when the available evidence cannot establish the location, dangerous condition, control, causation, or notice required under Florida law.

​

Incident Reports, Store Video, and Claims of Privilege

An incident report should be completed accurately and promptly. The injured person should identify the exact location, describe only what is actually known, name witnesses, and request a copy. A blank, incomplete, or inaccurate statement should not be signed. A business may claim that an internal incident report, employee photographs, or investigation materials are protected as work product because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation. The answer depends on who prepared the material, why it was created, and what it contains. In IMC Hospitality, LLC v. Ledford, the court recognized that incident reports and post-accident investigation materials may qualify as work product. The claimant was entitled to obtain the incident report because he had personally written or adopted it. The employee’s post-accident photographs received different treatment because the required showing of need and undue hardship had not been made.

​

Ordinary security video recording the accident itself is different from surveillance created later by an insurer to observe the claimant. In Target Corp. v. Vogel, the Fourth District treated security video of the accident as discoverable evidence rather than attorney work product. A privilege claim does not erase the underlying facts. Witness identities, inspection practices, the physical condition of the property, and nonprivileged video may remain discoverable. Because video can be overwritten quickly, a written preservation request should be sent as soon as possible.

​

Witnesses, Photographs, and Employee Identification

Photographs should include close views of the hazard and wide views establishing its exact location. Useful images may show footprints, wheel tracks, drying, debris, lighting, warning signs, surveillance cameras, merchandise, floor patterns, the path of travel, and nearby employees. Witnesses can leave before anyone obtains their information. Names, telephone numbers, email addresses, and brief descriptions of what each person observed should be recorded whenever possible. The names or identifying information of the store manager, security officer, responding employee, cleaning worker, vendor, or maintenance person may be important. If a name is unavailable, record the person’s appearance, uniform, job function, and statements. Statements such as “that cooler leaks all the time,” “someone already reported it,” or “we were waiting for maintenance” should be documented accurately without embellishment.

​

Prior Similar Incidents, Other Lawsuits, and Substantial Similarity

Prior similar incidents—sometimes described as PSI or OSI evidence—may help establish notice, recurrence, foreseeability, or the dangerous nature of a condition. Earlier complaints and near-falls may matter even when they did not result in lawsuits. The incidents ordinarily must be substantially similar to the event being litigated. Relevant points of comparison may include the same store or property, accident location, floor material, source of water, product display, stair configuration, lighting, weather conditions, maintenance practice, and mechanism of injury.

Substantial similarity does not always require identical facts, but an unrelated fall at another store hundreds of miles away may prove little about a condition in Hollywood. Prior lawsuits are allegations, not proof by themselves. Their pleadings, photographs, depositions, expert reports, and outcomes must be examined. Discovery may be broader than what is ultimately admitted at trial, but Florida courts have rejected unlimited corporate-wide searches untethered to the particular business establishment and hazard involved.

​

Save the Clothing and Shoes

Do not discard, clean, repair, or continue wearing the shoes involved in the fall. Preserve both shoes, even if only one foot slipped or caught. Photograph the tops, sides, soles, tread wear, and any residue. Document the brand, size, approximate age, prior condition, and frequency of use. Wet or contaminated shoes should not simply be sealed in plastic, where mold or deterioration may occur. Appropriate preservation instructions may be necessary. When expert testing is reasonably anticipated, the shoes and clothing should be stored separately and documented so their condition and chain of custody can later be established. Photograph clothing before washing it. Water, grease, food, dirt, tears, and transfer marks may corroborate the fall’s mechanism or help identify the substance. A stain alone, however, may not establish where the substance came from, how long it was present, whether it caused the fall, or whether the defendant had notice. Preserving these items also permits a fair response if the insurance company later argues that worn tread, loose sandals, high heels, or inappropriate footwear caused the accident.

​

Common Defenses in a Florida Slip-and-Fall Case

Insurance companies and property defendants frequently argue that no dangerous condition existed, the claimant cannot identify what caused the fall, the business lacked notice, an adequate inspection occurred shortly beforehand, the condition was open and obvious, a warning was present, the claimant was distracted, or the footwear caused the accident. Each defense must be evaluated against the evidence. A claimant’s uncertainty does not prove the defense, but neither can a missing element be supplied by assumption.

​

Open and Obvious Dangers

A common defense is that the condition was so open and obvious that a reasonable person should have seen and avoided it. The defense may focus on daylight, color contrast, the size of the condition, an unobstructed view, prior familiarity with the area, or the claimant’s failure to look down. An obvious condition can affect the duty to warn and the claimant’s comparative fault, but it does not automatically eliminate the separate duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition.

​

In Frazier v. Panera, LLC, a customer tripped over a black weighted sign base on a light sidewalk. The trial court considered the base open and obvious, but the appellate court reversed because questions remained about whether the restaurant created the hazard and failed to maintain a safe customer path. The court noted that adult customers are not necessarily expected to focus continuously on the ground while approaching a business.

Some ordinary and plainly visible property features may nevertheless be found not unreasonably dangerous. The analysis depends on the condition’s nature, location, expected use, and surrounding circumstances.

​

Do Warning Signs Defeat a Slip-and-Fall Claim?

Not automatically. A visible, timely, and accurately placed warning may satisfy the duty to warn and may affect comparative fault. A cone hidden behind the hazard, a generic sign far away, a sign placed after the fall, or a warning that does not identify the actual danger may be inadequate. A warning sign can also cut both ways. It may show that the defendant knew about the condition, while the defendant may argue that the sign was a reasonable response. The investigation should determine when the sign was placed, who placed it, where it stood before and after the accident, whether it was visible from the claimant’s approach, and whether a safe alternative route existed.

A warning does not necessarily excuse leaving a correctable structural or maintenance hazard in place.

​

What Is Florida’s 51% Rule?

Under Florida Statute § 768.81, a claimant found more than 50% responsible for his or her own harm generally cannot recover damages in an ordinary negligence action. A claimant found exactly 50% responsible is not above the statutory threshold, but the damages are reduced by 50%. A claimant found 20% responsible ordinarily receives 80% of the legally determined damages. Slip-and-fall defendants may allege that the claimant failed to watch where he or she was walking, ignored a warning, used a cellphone, chose an unsafe route, ran, knew about the condition, or wore unsafe footwear. The defense bears the burden of proving comparative negligence and its causal connection to the accident.

​

Do High Heels Prevent Recovery?

No. High heels are not illegal in Florida, and wearing them does not automatically establish comparative negligence.

In Bongiorno v. Americorp, Inc., the trial court assigned a claimant 50% of the fault because she wore four-to-five-inch heels. The appellate court reversed because the property owner did not present sufficient evidence that wearing the shoes created a legally cognizable foreseeable risk or caused the accident. That decision does not make footwear irrelevant in every case. A defendant may still present evidence concerning a broken heel, missing tread, untied laces, unstable footwear, or the claimant’s knowledge that particular shoes were unsafe. The defense must prove a causal connection rather than rely on assumption or stereotype.

​

Causation, Injuries, and Damages

Liability and damages are separate issues. Even when an unsafe condition and notice can be established, the claimant must prove that the fall caused or aggravated the injuries for which compensation is sought.

Evidence may include the mechanism of the fall, emergency records, diagnostic imaging, treating-physician testimony, prior medical records, lost-income documentation, physical limitations, future treatment, and the effect of the injuries on daily life. Potential damages may include reasonable medical expenses, future medical care, lost earnings, diminished earning capacity, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life. The available damages depend on the evidence and applicable Florida law.

​

Common Injuries in Slip-and-Fall Accidents

Falls can cause wrist and arm fractures, hip fractures, ankle injuries, knee and meniscus injuries, shoulder injuries, spinal injuries, herniated discs, facial injuries, concussions, traumatic brain injuries, and aggravation of preexisting medical conditions. An immediate emergency-room evaluation may rule out a fracture or life-threatening injury but does not necessarily resolve every orthopedic, neurological, or soft-tissue condition. Appropriate follow-up depends on the person’s symptoms and medical advice.

​

Elderly and Disabled Claimants, Prior Injuries, and the Eggshell Rule

An elderly person, someone using a cane or walker, or a person with a disability does not lose the protection of Florida negligence law because another individual might have suffered less harm from the same fall.

The property’s expected users and the accessibility of the route may be relevant to reasonable care. The defense may still examine whether the claimant used available handrails, ignored a warning, selected an unsafe route, or otherwise contributed to the accident. A prior injury or degenerative condition does not automatically bar recovery. Florida law permits damages when an accident aggravates an existing condition or activates a previously latent condition. The defendant is not responsible for unrelated preexisting symptoms, but it is responsible for harm the negligence legally caused. Florida’s standard civil jury instructions direct juries to separate the aggravation when the evidence permits. When the accident-related and preexisting components cannot reasonably be separated, the instructions address recovery for the resulting combined condition.

​

Where Do Slip-and-Fall Accidents Commonly Happen in Hollywood?

Hollywood premises-liability claims may arise at supermarkets, shopping centers, restaurants, hotels, oceanfront resorts, condominium towers, apartment complexes, office buildings, medical facilities, entertainment venues, parking lots, garages, sidewalks, swimming-pool areas, and construction sites. Hollywood Beach properties can present issues involving wet hotel lobbies, pool decks, exterior tile, sand, algae, drainage, balcony or common-area maintenance, and rain-exposed walkways. A fall on or near the Hollywood Beach Broadwalk may require determining whether the precise location was controlled by the City, a hotel, condominium association, business tenant, or private contractor. Downtown Hollywood restaurants, shops, and mixed-use properties may involve spills, mats, crowded customer paths, sidewalk defects, lighting, and changes in elevation. Residential claims may turn on whether a landlord, condominium association, management company, tenant, or maintenance contractor controlled the accident area. The neighborhood or type of business does not determine liability. A claim depends on the particular condition, precise accident location, responsible parties, available evidence, and applicable law.

​

What If the Fall Happened While You Were Working?

A person injured while performing job duties may have a Florida workers’ compensation claim even when no one can prove that the property owner was negligent. Workers’ compensation may provide authorized medical treatment and partial wage benefits under rules that differ from a premises-liability lawsuit. When a legally responsible third party outside the employer caused the dangerous condition, the worker may also have a premises-liability claim against a property owner, tenant, maintenance company, vendor, or contractor. The claims can proceed under different standards, and workers’ compensation lien or subrogation issues may affect any third-party recovery. More information is available on the firm’s Hollywood workers’ compensation lawyer page.

​

Falls on City, County, or Other Government Property

A fall on a City of Hollywood sidewalk, municipal building, park, school, transit property, or other government-controlled location may involve Florida’s sovereign-immunity statute. Florida Statute § 768.28 provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity subject to written presentment requirements, procedural conditions, restrictions, and recovery limits. The statute currently limits payment to $200,000 for one person and $300,000 for all claims arising from one occurrence unless additional payment is authorized through another lawful procedure or applicable insurance arrangements.

The statute generally requires written presentment to the appropriate agency within three years for an ordinary tort claim and contains separate filing, denial, service, and party requirements. It also provides a specific four-year period for commencing an ordinary tort action governed by the section. Wrongful-death and medical-malpractice claims are treated differently. These requirements should not be analyzed solely under the general two-year negligence deadline.

The government may also argue that the challenged decision was a protected planning or discretionary function rather than negligent operational maintenance. Determining who controlled the property is especially important because a private contractor, adjacent property owner, association, or tenant may also bear responsibility without receiving the government’s immunity protections.

​

What to Do After a Slip-and-Fall Accident

Obtain Appropriate Medical Care

A delay can endanger your health and create a dispute about whether the fall caused the injury. Describe the mechanism and affected body parts accurately to medical providers without exaggerating or minimizing symptoms.

Report the Accident

Report the fall to the manager, owner, security officer, landlord, or association. Request that an incident report be prepared and ask for a copy. Do not sign a blank, incomplete, or inaccurate statement.

Photograph the Exact Condition and Location

Capture close views of the substance or defect and wide views showing the path of travel, surrounding area, lighting, warning signs, cameras, displays, doors, ramps, steps, and landmarks that identify the precise location.

Identify Witnesses and Employees

Obtain names and contact information before people leave. Record the names or descriptions of managers, security personnel, cleaners, maintenance workers, vendors, and employees who responded or worked nearby.

Preserve Shoes, Clothing, and Records

Do not clean, discard, repair, or continue wearing the shoes involved. Photograph clothing before washing it. Keep receipts, credit-card records, appointment records, photographs, and other documents establishing when and why you were on the property.

Do Not Guess About Unknown Facts

Describe honestly what you remember, what you observed after the fall, and what others told you. Do not convert an assumption into a fact. Missing details can sometimes be reconstructed through independent evidence.

Request Preservation Before Evidence Disappears

Consult a lawyer promptly so that surveillance video, photographs, inspection records, employee information, work orders, maintenance records, and other evidence can be requested before they are lost or destroyed.

How Long Do I Have to File a Florida Slip-and-Fall Lawsuit?

The current version of Florida Statute § 95.11 generally provides a two-year limitations period for an action founded on negligence. The correct deadline may depend on when the claim accrued, when the accident occurred, the identity of the defendant, wrongful death, sovereign immunity, contractual notice provisions, and other facts. Cruise and maritime claims can involve separate federal or contractual rules. Evidence frequently disappears long before the filing deadline, so waiting nearly two years to investigate a fall can severely damage an otherwise valid claim.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I Recover If I Did Not See the Hazard Before I Fell?

Possibly. Many people first see the substance or defect after falling. The condition and causation may be established through photographs, witnesses, video, residue, clothing, or other circumstantial evidence. A case becomes much more difficult when no evidence identifies any dangerous condition or mechanism of the fall.

What If I Cannot Remember the Exact Place Where I Fell?

Receipts, purchase records, cellphone data, emergency records, witnesses, employee assignments, store diagrams, and surveillance footage may help reconstruct the location. The investigation must move quickly because video can be overwritten and employees or witnesses may become difficult to locate.

Does a Business Have to Provide Me With Its Incident Report?

Not necessarily at the scene. Discoverability depends on who prepared or adopted the report and whether the business can establish work-product protection. A claimant is generally in a stronger position to obtain a statement the claimant personally wrote or adopted. Ask for a copy and independently document what happened.

Is Surveillance Video Privileged?

Ordinary security video depicting the accident is generally different from litigation surveillance created later by an insurer. Video of the accident may be discoverable, but it can be overwritten unless preservation is requested promptly.

Does a Warning Cone Defeat My Case?

Not automatically. The cone’s timing, location, visibility, wording, and relationship to the actual hazard matter. An adequate warning may affect liability and comparative fault, but a misplaced or after-the-fact cone may prove little.

Can Both the Landlord and Business Tenant Be Responsible?

Possibly. Responsibility may depend on the lease, control of the accident area, maintenance obligations, knowledge, repairs, and who created the condition. A property manager, maintenance company, or cleaning contractor may also be involved.

Does an Open and Obvious Condition Automatically Defeat the Case?

No. It may affect the duty to warn and comparative fault, but a separate claim for failure to maintain the property safely may remain. Some ordinary, clearly visible conditions may nevertheless be found not unreasonably dangerous.

Can I Recover If I Was Wearing High Heels?

High heels do not automatically bar or reduce recovery. The defense must present evidence that the footwear was unsafe under the particular circumstances and contributed to the fall.

Can I Recover If I Had Arthritis, Prior Back Pain, or an Earlier Injury?

A prior condition does not automatically prevent recovery. Compensation may be available for a new injury or a proven aggravation of an existing condition. Medical records and qualified testimony are often required to distinguish prior symptoms from accident-related harm.

How Much Is a Hollywood Slip-and-Fall Case Worth?

Value depends on liability evidence, comparative fault, available insurance, medical causation, diagnosis, permanency, past and future treatment, lost income, and the effect of the injury on the person’s life. No responsible valuation can be made from the fact of a fall alone.

How Much Does It Cost to Hire Daniel B Reinfeld, PA?

The firm offers a free initial consultation. Accepted personal-injury cases are generally handled on a contingency-fee basis, meaning no attorney’s fee is owed unless compensation is recovered. The written fee agreement controls the representation.

​​

Injury Cases We Handle in Hollywood

Daniel B Reinfeld, PA represents clients in serious accident and injury matters arising throughout Hollywood and surrounding Broward County communities. Cases accepted by the firm may include the following:

Slip-and-Fall and Premises-Liability Claims

Florida premises-liability cases can turn on notice, maintenance practices, inspection records, surveillance video, incident reports, and whether a dangerous condition was reasonably discoverable. The firm investigates both liability and the medical evidence connecting the incident to the claimed injuries.

Florida premises-liability cases can turn on notice, maintenance practices, inspection records, surveillance video, incident reports, and whether a dangerous condition was reasonably discoverable. Daniel B Reinfeld, PA investigates both liability and the medical evidence connecting the incident to the claimed injuries, including whether the property owner, tenant, manager, maintenance contractor, or another party controlled the area where the fall occurred.

​

Trip-and-Fall and Sidewalk, and Parking-Lot Accidents

Trip-and-fall claims may involve raised pavement, broken sidewalks, uneven pavers, potholes, dangerous thresholds, wheel stops, drainage defects, torn carpeting, exposed cords, inadequate lighting, or unexpected changes in elevation. Liability may depend on the condition’s location and visibility, how long it existed, prior complaints, repair history, applicable building or accessibility standards, and which party controlled the area. Potential defendants include property owners, commercial tenants, associations, property managers, paving contractors, landscapers, maintenance companies, and governmental entities and practical danger must be evaluated together.

​

Supermarket Accidents

Supermarket injuries frequently involve dropped produce, refrigeration leaks, floral-department water, leaking containers, recently cleaned floors, entranceway rainwater, loose mats, and merchandise obstructing an aisle. These claims often depend on surveillance footage, inspection logs, employee testimony, the appearance and condition of the substance, and whether the hazard existed long enough—or occurred regularly enough—for the supermarket to discover and correct it.

​

Big-Box and Retail-Store Accidents

Big-box and retail-store claims extend beyond ordinary spills and can involve unstable displays, overhead merchandise, pallets, carts, lumber, building materials, forklifts, loading areas, garden-center water, and customer pathways obstructed by store operations. The investigation should distinguish between a condition created by store employees or contractors and a hazard requiring proof of actual or constructive notice. Store policies, employee assignments, video, photographs, and preservation of the involved merchandise can become critical evidence.

​

Falling-Merchandise Accidents

Boxes, lumber, tile, appliances, signs, shelves, and other merchandise can cause serious injuries when improperly stacked, displayed, secured, or retrieved. A falling-object claim may focus on stocking procedures, shelf capacity, employee conduct, display design, prior incidents, and whether customers were encouraged to remove heavy or elevated merchandise without assistance. Preserving video and identifying the precise product and display configuration should occur as quickly as possible.

​​​​

Stairway Accidents

Stairway falls may result from unequal risers, inadequate tread depth, loose nosings, missing or defective handrails, slippery surfaces, inadequate lighting, or an unexpected step that is difficult to perceive. These cases can require detailed measurements, photographs, code research, architectural review, and an evaluation of whether the stairway was constructed, altered, and maintained safely. The medical investigation must also distinguish injuries caused by the fall from preexisting conditions.

Elevator and Escalator Accidents

Elevator and escalator injuries may result from misleveling, abrupt movement, defective doors, entrapment, unsafe gaps, broken steps, handrail problems, or inadequate inspection and maintenance. Potential defendants include the property owner, property manager, maintenance contractor, installer, and equipment manufacturer. Inspection certificates, service records, prior complaints, fault codes, surveillance video, and expert examination of the equipment may be essential to determining what failed and why.

​

Pool, Drowning, and Recreational Accidents

Swimming pools, playgrounds, gyms, trampoline parks, and other recreational areas present risks involving inadequate barriers, defective equipment, unsafe surfaces, poor maintenance, missing warnings, and negligent supervision. Pool and drowning cases may additionally involve gates, alarms, visibility, water clarity, drain safety, lifesaving equipment, and compliance with applicable safety requirements. These incidents require prompt preservation of the property’s condition, video, inspection records, and witness accounts.

​​

Structural-Failure Claims

Structural-failure cases include collapsing balconies, defective railings, falling ceilings, façade debris, failed stairs, roof components, and other building elements that break or detach. The responsible parties may include an owner, association, property manager, contractor, engineer, architect, maintenance provider, or product manufacturer. Building plans, permits, inspection reports, repair history, photographs, preserved components, and engineering analysis can be central to proving causation.

​

Defective-Product Claims

A product may cause injury because it was defectively designed, improperly manufactured, or sold without adequate instructions or warnings. Potential claims can involve tools, appliances, ladders, furniture, machinery, batteries, safety equipment, and other consumer or commercial products. The product should be preserved in its post-incident condition, along with its packaging, warnings, receipt, model and serial numbers, maintenance history, and information identifying the manufacturer and seller.

​

Workplace Third-Party Claims

An employee injured at work may have rights beyond workers’ compensation when someone other than the employer or a protected coworker contributed to the incident. Possible third-party defendants include property owners, general contractors, subcontractors, equipment manufacturers, maintenance companies, vendors, and other businesses at the site. A third-party claim can potentially provide damages unavailable through workers’ compensation, but contractual relationships, statutory immunity, control, and insurance coverage must be analyzed carefully.

Dog Bites and Animal Attacks

Florida law generally holds a dog owner responsible when the dog bites someone who is lawfully in a public or private place, even without proof of a prior bite or known viciousness. Comparative negligence, lawful presence, ownership, warnings, and causation may still affect the recovery. Non-bite attacks, knockdowns, and claims against landlords, property managers, or businesses ordinarily require a separate examination of negligence, notice, control, and the ability to remove or restrain the animal.

Why hire Dan?​ Former Insurance-Defense Experience

Before representing injured people and policyholders, Daniel Reinfeld spent approximately six years representing insurance companies and their insureds in civil litigation. That work provided first-hand experience with the methods insurers use to investigate claims, evaluate injuries, contest liability and causation, select experts, negotiate settlements, and prepare cases for trial. That perspective helps Daniel identify the questions an insurer is likely to ask before those issues become obstacles to recovery.

​​

Why hire Dan?​ A Hollywood Injury Lawyer With Results That Can Be Verified

Personal Injury advertising often sounds the same, but proven experience and verifiable results matter more than a flashy social media presence. Dan's record and qualifications include a $1.6 million unanimous jury verdict for a pedestrian injured in a motor-vehicle accident, recognized by TopVerdict as one of Florida’s Top 100 Personal Injury Verdicts of 2024; a $2 million motor-vehicle accident settlement; more than 25 years of legal and litigation experience; approximately six years representing insurance companies and their insureds in civil litigation and insurance-defense matters; extensive jury-trial, courtroom, and appellate experience; and direct, one-on-one attorney access throughout the case

​

Why hire Dan?​ Direct Access to the Attorney Handling Your Case

At Daniel B Reinfeld, PA, the case begins with an attorney—not a call center or intake department. Daniel Reinfeld personally evaluates and handles each accepted matter. Clients receive direct attorney access, prompt communication, and an explanation of the important decisions affecting their claim. The firm offers evening and weekend appointments when available and can arrange hospital or house calls when circumstances require them.​

​​

Why hire Dan?​ Trial Experience Matters in a Personal Injury Claim

Most personal injury claims resolve without a jury verdict. Even so, the ability and willingness to prepare a case for trial can affect how an insurer evaluates risk. A claim supported by admissible evidence, qualified experts, credible witnesses, and a coherent damages presentation is different from a demand that depends on volume or advertising alone. Dan's background includes criminal jury trials, civil litigation, insurance defense, personal injury trials, and appellate work. He understands how insurers investigate accidents, challenge liability, dispute medical causation, evaluate permanent injury, retain experts, and defend claims in court. Today, he applies that knowledge on behalf of injured people and their families.

​

CALL Dan 📞 (954) 923-6110​

Daniel B Reinfeld, PA is located at 2450 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 706, Hollywood, Florida 33020. Daniel Reinfeld has lived in Hollywood since 1985 and represents clients throughout Broward County and South Florida. The firm serves clients in Hollywood, Hallandale Beach, Dania Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Pembroke Pines, Miramar, Davie, Cooper City, Plantation, and surrounding communities, as well as appropriate matters throughout Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Monroe, and other Florida counties. If you were injured in Hollywood, you will speak directly with Dan—not a call center or intake department. Dan is a trial-tested personal injury lawyer with more than 25 years of experience and former insurance-defense knowledge. He personally evaluates and handles every case accepted by the firm.  You do not need to travel to the Hollywood office to begin your case. FREE consultations may be available by telephone, Zoom video conference, hospital visit, or home visit when appropriate.​ No attorney’s fee unless a recovery is obtained. CALL Dan:  📞 (954) 923-6110​