If Winn Dixie’s carelessness caused your injury in Florida, you may have a case.
You may also be interested in an article that I wrote on injury claims and settlements against Florida supermarkets. I also wrote an article on accident claims and settlements against Publix Supermarkets.
You can spend hours looking at Winn-Dixie personal injury settlements on the internet, but if you do not know the breakdown of the damages in the verdict or settlement, you will not fully understand the damages component of the settlement.
There are many factors that affect a personal injury case against Winn Dixie. Therefore, there is a chance that you do not get any money for your accident.
Winn Dixie Claims Department
I am not Winn Dixie Claims. If you want to file a personal injury claim with Winn Dixie, you should send them a letter via certified mail return receipt to these 2 addresses:
5050 Edgewood Court
Jacksonville, FL 32254-3699
P.O. Box B
Jacksonville, FL 32203-0297
You should ask Winn-Dixie to preserve any video (specifically for the entire day of the incident) if you fell in the store.
If a Winn-Dixie truck hit you, you should ask them in writing to preserve all electronic evidence (Event data recorders, etc.) as well as driver trucking logs.
I’ve heard of Winn Dixie offering a gift card to customers if they are injured in the supermarket. Winn Dixie will want you to sign a release stating that you give up your right to file a lawsuit.
Publix Supermarkets is also known for offering gift cards as a form of compensation.
It may be OK to accept a gift card if you do not require any medical treatment, but if you need medical treatment or have missed work due to the accident then you may not want to accept the gift card.
You should always wait until your medical treatment is completed before settling a case with Winn Dixie. This is because once you settle your case by signing a release, then most of the time you cannot re-open your case.
You cannot then go back to Winn Dixie and try to get more money.
However, just because a claims adjuster for Winn Dixie tells you that your claim is closed does not mean that you do not have a good case.
Okay. Let’s talk about some settlements and verdicts against Winn Dixie in Florida.
For all the settlements and verdicts on this page, I was not the attorney who represented the injured person unless I say so.
Lady Gets $8,000 for Wrist Fracture from Slip and Fall
This is not my case. However, I have settled many slip and fall claims against supermarkets in Florida.
An unemployed 66 year-old woman slipped and fell on oil on the floor of a Winn Dixie in Miami, Florida. She suffered an impact fracture to the wrist.
They awarded her $16,000 in damages. The breakdown was:
Since she was 50% at fault, she gets $8,000.
The verdict was in 2001. The case is Robbins vs. Winn-Dixie.
My thoughts: The amount awarded for her pain and suffering damages for this impact fracture of the wrist is below the average settlement range for wrist fractures in Florida accidents.
The fact that the jury found her to be 50% at fault for her fall is in line with the saying that:
“A jury in a slip and fall case on a shopper’s best day will place 50% fault on the shopper.”
Like most sayings, this one does not always apply. However, it is a good general rule of thumb.
As you can see from this case, in Florida, a shopper can still have a good case even if he or she is partially at fault in the accident. In some other states, she would have received nothing since she was 50% at fault.
Florida’s comparative negligence laws are favorable to injured victims.
Customer Gets $14,864 for Neck and Back Injuries from Slip and Fall
This is not my case. A Miami-Dade County jury found that a Winn-Dixie Store’s negligence caused a shopper to slip and fall. It happened in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
The injured person was a 45 year-old female housekeeper. She claimed to have fallen on a raspberry that was on the floor.
Winn-Dixie argued that it inspected the floor shortly before the fall and there was nothing on the floor.
Prior to trial, Winn-Dixie offered $8,000 to settle. The shopper rejected it.
The jury awarded:
- $13,864 for past medical bills
- $1,000 for past pain and suffering
The verdict was in 2001. The case is Casteneda vs. Winn-Dixie Stores.
My thoughts: The jury may have felt that the shopper did not have permanent injuries because they didn’t give her money for future medical bills.
If the shopper made a claim after a truck hit her in Florida owned or operated by Winn-Dixie, she may not have received any money for pain and suffering if she was not able to prove that she had a permanent injury.
This case shows that soft tissue cases may not be worth taking to trial. However, it may still be worth it to sue.
As you can see, Winn-Dixie offered $8,000, which is still a decent amount of money.
Winn Dixie Not Liable for Shopper’s Slip and Fall on Floor that Wasn’t Wet
Sarah Jane White sued Winn Dixie Stores, Inc in a slip-and-fall case. This is not my case.
A verdict was entered for White. Winn Dixie appealed and argued that the court should have granted it a directed verdict. The appeals court agreed.
The evidence revealed that the White slipped and fell in Winn Dixie, sustaining personal injuries. A man with a buffer was observed near the location of White’s fall; however, no witness had seen the man buff the particular area where White fell.
The floor surface was shiny.
Floor Was Not Wet
White found no wetness or other cause for her accident when she looked after falling.
Floor Wasn’t Slippery
A witness who noticed her fall experienced no slipperiness on the floor.
Winn Dixie’s store manager testified that the buffing takes place regularly and does not leave the floor surface slippery or wet.
Nothing was on the floor
Furthermore, an examination of the area shortly after the accident revealed nothing on the floor.
In order to find Winn Dixie liable in the instant case, the jury would have to necessarily infer that there was a dangerous condition at the situs of the fall and that Winn Dixie had actual or constructive knowledge thereof.
The appeals court said that such inferences could not be properly drawn from the evidence.
The appeals court said that rather, they could only be drawn from guessing. It said the trial court erred in denying Winn Dixie’s motion for a directed verdict.
A verdict was entered for Winn Dixie. Basically, Winn Dixie won the case. The woman lost. I believe that White was shopping at the time of her fall.
She likely sued in one of these counties: Palm Beach, Broward, St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties.
The Winn Dixie v. White, 675 So.2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) case is an older case but it is still good law. It was cited in the 2011 case of Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc., 65 So. 3d 1087, 1089 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011). (Learn about slip and fall claims against Florida laundromats).
Jury Gets to Hear What Winn Dixie Cashier Told Injured Shopper After Her Fall
This is not my case. In Chaney v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 605 So.2d 527, 529-30 (Fla. App. 2d Dist. 1992), a statement of a apparent but unidentified Winn Dixie store employee that “[she] called that boy a few minutes ago to come here and clean this up” was admissible against employer to establish actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.
The customer could use this employee’s statement to show that the store knew or should have known that there was a substance on the floor before her fall. The shopper would have lost her case at trial if she wasn’t allowed to use the employee’s statement.
Winn Dixie Liable for Shopper’s Slip and Fall on Peas
This is not my case. Charlie Teate, and his wife Dorothy, sued Winn-Dixie Stores in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The appeal was in the Third District Court of Appeal, located in Miami, which encompasses Dade and Monroe Counties.
This is an older case, but it is still good law. It was cited in 2015 in Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Dist. Court, MD Florida 2015. (Learn about slip and fall claims against Walmart stores in Florida).
Charlie Teate slipped and fell on some peas in the frozen food department of a Winn-Dixie supermarket. He fractured his femur.
The jury returned a verdict apportioning Winn-Dixie eighty per cent of the blame and Teate twenty per cent.
This may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Schmidt v. Bowl America Florida, Inc., 358 So.2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Grizzard v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 330 So.2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Williams, 264 So.2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
Teate showed that:
- no employee had cleaned the area for fifteen to twenty minutes before the fall.
- there was some water on the floor around the peas.
Teate contends that the water was there because the peas had been on the floor for some time and had thawed. The jury could believe this and find that the peas had been on the floor for a sufficient time to put Winn-Dixie on notice of the dangerous condition.
Winn-Dixie counters that the water was a result of “permafrost” or ice crystals on the bag of peas that instantly melted when it hit the floor. The jury could choose to believe this argument, find the peas had fallen perhaps only seconds before the fall, and decide that there was insufficient notice.
Since it was established that there was some water on the floor, it was completely within the jury’s province to decide why the water was there. Camina v. Parliament Ins. Co., 417 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Grizzard, 330 So.2d at 769.
The jury needed to draw only one inference from direct evidence to reach a decision as to the defendant’s constructive notice of the condition. See Montgomery v. Florida Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., 281 So.2d 302 (Fla. 1973); Camina, at 1094.
It was entitled to believe Teate and to select the inference that it did. The appeals court let the jury verdict stand. The injured man won the case.
Court Dismisses Case Where Shopper Slips on “Unnoticeable” Water
Proving Constructive Notice Against Winn Dixie
Florida appellate courts have struggled to determine whether in a given case sufficient evidence exists to create a jury question on the issue of constructive notice.
Depending on the description of the transitory foreign substance, some appellate courts have concluded that the appearance of the transitory foreign substance may in itself be sufficient to create a jury question on constructive notice.
Ramey v. Winn Dixie Montgomery, Inc., 710 So.2d 191, 192-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
The jury found Winn Dixie and Ramey were each fifty per cent negligent, and awarded Ramey the amount of medical bills incurred, together with $6,000.00 for past pain and suffering, and zero damages for future medical care, and non-economic damages.
The trial court denied Ramey’s motion for new trial, based on the court’s further finding that Ramey’s delay in seeking medical care permitted the jury to reject or discount the evidence of a permanent and continuing injury with an associated entitlement to future economic and noneconomic damages.
Both doctors testified that Ramey suffered a herniated disc caused by the fall in a Winn Dixie supermarket; the injury is permanent; back pain is always associated with such injuries; and Ramey will need intermittent treatment for back pain for the remainder of his life.
They said that this unreasonable verdict was most likely the result of some sort of improper compromise or balancing on a close issue of negligence, rather than a proper separate determination on the issues of negligence and damages. The appeals court ordered a new trial.
New Law! In a recent case, Hurtado v. DeSouza, Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2015, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District said that a car crash victim could not testify that was unable to seek medical treatment because there was no health insurance.
Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 528 So.2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
In Smith, Rosa Smith and Colombus Smith sued Winn Dixie Stores. In 1988, Florida’s District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District issued an opinion.
Rosa allegedly slipped was on a green leafy substance on the floor at Winn Dixie store. The store was either located in Dade or Monroe County, Florida.
The appeals court said that “the fact that there is no inspection for a given length of time in itself provides no proof that the defect was actually there for a sufficient period to place the landowner on reasonable notice of its existence.”
Tip: This case was dismissed because there was no testimony that the leafy substance had characteristics of age.
Ortiz v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 511 So.2d 765, 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
In Ortiz v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 511 So.2d 765, 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), Ms. Ortiz stated after the incident “I heard somebody dragging something and they said, “They ought to move this s____t out of the way.” And the people said, “We was clearing the floor.”
The appeals court said that this should prevent dismissal on liability on the ground that only Winn-Dixie would have undertaken the responsibility of removing the offending object from the floor of its own establishment.
Gaidymowicz v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 371 So. 2d 212, 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
In Gaidymowicz, a customer sued Winn Dixie. The evidence showed that the store manager had been down the aisle only five minutes before the customer’s fall, finding nothing. The court held that this was not a sufficient time to correct the dangerous condition.
Gaidymowicz was decided by the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District in 1979. This case is still good law. It was cited in 2014 in the case of Walker v. Winn Dixie.
The 3rd District Court of Appeal, located in Miami, includes Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties.
Did someone’s carelessness cause your injury in an accident in Florida, or on a cruise or boat?
See Our Settlements
Check out some of the many Florida injury cases that we have settled, including but not limited to car accidents, truck accidents, slip or trip and falls, motorcycle accidents, drunk driving (DUI) accidents, pedestrian accidents, taxi accidents, bicycle accidents, store or supermarket accidents, cruise ship accidents, dog bites, wrongful death and much more.
We want to represent you!
Our Miami law firm represents people anywhere in Florida if someone’s carelessness caused their injuries in car accidents, truck accidents, slip, trip and falls, motorcycle accidents, bike accidents, drunk driving crashes, pedestrian accidents, cruise ship or boat accidents, store or supermarket accidents, wrongful death, accidents at an apartment complex, condo building or home, accidents involving a Uber or Lyft Driver, and many other types of accidents.
We want to represent you if you were hurt in an accident in Florida, on a cruise ship or boat. If you live in Florida but were injured in another state we may also be able to represent you.
Call Us Now!
Call us now at (888) 594-3577 to find out for FREE if we can represent you. We answer calls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
No Fees or Costs if We Do Not Get You Money
Editor’s Note: This post was originally published in June 2013 and has been completely revamped and updated.