Vanessa Sutton v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 64 F.4th 1166

On Aug. 23, 2018, Vanessa Sutton slipped on a squished grape in a West Palm Beach Wal‑Mart and injured her back and shoulder.
After the fall Sutton observed a "dirty" squished grape with juice, a track mark a few inches away, and footprints near the grape; she did not see the grape before falling.
Two employees inspected the produce area about one hour and ~30 minutes before the fall, and another about ten minutes before; they testified they did not see a grape.
Store surveillance video (totaling two hours, including the hour+ before the fall) does not show the grape landing and does not clearly show the floor area where the grape was located.
District court granted Wal‑Mart summary judgment, holding plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute about actual or constructive knowledge under Florida law.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, concluding there is a genuine factual dispute about constructive knowledge based on circumstantial evidence (dirty grape, track mark, footprints, and video gaps).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wal‑Mart had constructive knowledge of a transitory foreign substance under Fla. Stat. § 768.0755(1)(a)	Sutton: dirty grape, track mark, and footprints permit inference the grape sat long enough for Wal‑Mart to know	Wal‑Mart: employee inspections and video show no grape; plaintiff offers no direct proof of time on floor	Reversed: circumstantial evidence creates a triable issue of constructive knowledge
Whether the combined circumstantial evidence (dirty appearance, track mark, footprints, and surveillance) is sufficient to defeat summary judgment	Sutton: dirty/scuffed substance + track/footprints + absence of a clear drop on video support reasonable inferences of long presence	Wal‑Mart: similar facts in other cases did not suffice; inspections and lack of direct evidence undercut inference	Reversed: courts may infer length from such additional facts; here a jury must decide

Winn‑Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Williams, 264 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (15–20 minutes held sufficient to impute knowledge)
Oliver v. Winn‑Dixie Stores, Inc., 291 So. 3d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (granted summary judgment where no tracks/footprints and employee saw area 13 minutes prior)
Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc., 65 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (mere presence of substance insufficient; need additional facts)
Woods v. Winn‑Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (dirt/scuffing/track marks generate inference of constructive notice)
Guenther v. Winn‑Dixie Stores, Inc., 395 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (dirty, scuffed liquid with tracks adequate to impute notice)
Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2001) (absence of descriptive facts about substance supports summary judgment)