The plaintiff slipped in a Winn-Dixie store on what she alleged was a liquid substance but turned out to be a "squished grape." Photo: KAY4YK/Shutterstock.

A premises liability lawsuit brought by a Broward woman, who slipped and fell in a supermarket, has taken a tumble of its own in the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which threw out the case after analyzing evidence about how long a grape had been on the floor.

The ruling demonstrates how a company's training policies and its staff's response to an accident could save businesses from legal trouble.

Plaintiff Brandy T. Oliver sued Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. in 2017, alleging a "liquid substance" sent her into a half-split on the floor. That substance turned out to be a "squished grape," according to the Fourth DCA's ruling, which dissected whether staff knew or should have known the grape was on the floor.

Oliver's lawsuit proved fruitless.

The appellate panel agreed with Broward Circuit Judge Carol-Lisa Phillips' decision to grant Winn-Dixie summary judgment. It found employee and customer testimony particularly compelling.

Staff were trained to "always be on the lookout" for spills and to "immediately address" them, according to the ruling, which noted that surveillance footage showed one employee had walked through the area where Oliver slipped four times in a 30-minute period to stack shelves. That employee testified that he saw a clear, clean and dry floor, though the footage wasn't clear enough to show where he was looking.

Oliver fell 13 minutes after the employee was last there, and a manager responded to the accident within about two minutes, according to the ruling. Upon inspection, staff testified to seeing a squished grape with a single slip mark through its juice.

Crucially, that testimony was consistent with what a customer witness had said about a "very small" substance that "might have been the cause" of Oliver's fall.

Nobody, including the plaintiff, saw the rogue grape or any cart tracks or footprints through it before the fall, which the Fourth DCA took to mean that it wasn't on the floor long enough for anyone to have constructive knowledge about it.

According to the opinion, Oliver also acknowledged there was no evidence Winn-Dixie did know about the grape or its surrounding juice. But she argued the trial court shouldn't have given her the burden of proving that at the summary judgment stage.

The appeals court agreed but found that because Winn-Dixie had satisfied its burden of clearing up remaining issues of fact in the case, it became the plaintiff's burden to show that the supermarket should have and could have done something about the potential hazard.

Robin Hazel of Hazel Law in Pembroke Pines represented the plaintiff, while Wesley L. Catri of Catri, Holton, Kessler & Kessler in Fort Lauderdale represented Winn-Dixie. They did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

Fourth DCA Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz wrote the ruling, with Judges Cory J. Ciklin and Burton C. Conner concurring.

Read the ruling:

More appeals:

$9.7M Award Against Lawyer Spotlights Missing Safeguard in Arbitration

Prosecutors Misled Jury in Rape Case Against Uber Driver, Florida Panel Finds