Dominguez v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
187 So. 3d 892
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Caridad Dominguez slipped on laundry detergent that spilled from a bottle which fell from a Publix shelf; incident captured on store surveillance video.
- Video showed several customers in the aisle in the eight minutes before the fall; one customer reached a shelf near where the bottle later lay.
- Publix assistant grocery manager Keith Nation was at the opposite end of the 72-foot aisle; he heard the bottle fall, ran to the spill, and was straddling and righting the bottle nine seconds after it fell.
- Four seconds after Nation began righting the bottle (thirteen seconds after the bottle fell), Dominguez entered the aisle and slipped on the detergent; Nation’s back was to her as she entered.
- Trial court awarded attorneys’ fees to Publix under a proposal for settlement and denied Publix’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; Publix appealed the latter and Dominguez appealed the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Publix exercised ordinary care to maintain premises reasonably safe after a transitory spill | Dominguez argued Publix failed to follow its internal procedure to block the aisle and thus was negligent | Publix argued staff responded immediately upon hearing the fall and had only seconds to correct the hazard | Court held Publix used ordinary care; no negligence as a matter of law |
| Whether internal safety policies establish the standard of care owed to invitees | Dominguez argued deviation from Publix policy shows breach | Publix argued internal policies are relevant but do not set legal standard of care | Court held internal policies admissible but do not raise the legal standard of care |
| Whether the short time between bottle fall and plaintiff’s slip supports submitting negligence to jury | Dominguez argued condition existed long enough for constructive or actual notice | Publix argued the spill existed only seconds and employee response was immediate | Court held the short interval (13 seconds) insufficient to impute liability; directed verdict warranted |
| Validity of awarding attorneys’ fees under proposal for settlement | Dominguez appealed fee award | Publix sought affirmance of fee award | Court affirmed attorneys’ fees award to Publix without extended discussion |
Key Cases Cited
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McKenzie, 502 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (directed verdict standard)
- Rocamonde v. Marshalls of Ma, Inc., 56 So. 3d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (invitee duties: warn and maintain)
- Westchester Exxon v. Valdes, 524 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (property owner duties to invitees)
- Early v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Orlando, 61 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1952) (obvious conditions and invitee perception)
- Gaidymowicz v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 371 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (transitory substance: brief notice may preclude liability)
- Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Heiser, 156 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963) (rapid employee response and seconds/minutes analysis)
- Waters v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 146 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) (slip occurred seconds after object fell)
- Mayo v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 686 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (internal policies admissible but not dispositive)
- Gunlock v. Gill Hotels, Inc., 622 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (internal safety policies do not set legal standard)