How HB 837 Changed Slip and Fall Cases in Florida

If you slipped and fell in a Florida store, restaurant, or business property, HB 837 changed important parts of your case — including the deadline to file and how shared fault is handled. The standard for proving these “transitory foreign substance” cases comes from a separate Florida statute, Fla. Stat. §768.0755, enacted in 2010, which already required injured people to prove the business knew or should have known about the hazard. Understanding both the knowledge standard and what HB 837 changed — and what evidence you need to gather — is essential to any Florida slip and fall claim.

What Is a Transitory Foreign Substance Case?

A transitory foreign substance case arises when a person is injured by a slip and fall caused by a substance on a business floor — a spill, a puddle, a dropped item, a tracked-in liquid. These are the most common slip and fall cases on commercial property.

Since 2010, Fla. Stat. §768.0755 has governed these cases. It requires the injured person to prove that the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and failed to address it. This knowledge requirement predates HB 837 — it was not created by the 2023 tort reform law.

What the Knowledge Standard Requires

Under §768.0755, an injured person pursuing a slip and fall claim involving a transitory foreign substance must affirmatively prove that the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and failed to address it.

• Actual knowledge: means the business knew the hazard existed — an employee saw the spill, a manager was told about it, or the business created the condition itself.
• Constructive knowledge: means the condition existed long enough that the business should have discovered it through reasonable inspection and maintenance. Under the statute, this is typically shown by demonstrating either:

The dangerous condition existed for a length of time sufficient to put a reasonable business on notice, or

The condition occurred regularly and was therefore foreseeable.

The critical point: you must prove the business had this knowledge. It is not enough to show that you fell and were injured. You must show the business knew — or should have known — and failed to act.

Why the Knowledge Standard Matters for Slip and Fall Victims

The §768.0755 knowledge requirement sets a real burden: a plaintiff must demonstrate the business’s actual or constructive knowledge to establish liability in a transitory foreign substance case. Showing only that a hazard existed and that you were hurt is not enough.

In practical terms, this means:

• A spill with no evidence of duration is harder to win.: If a substance was tracked onto a floor moments before you fell, and there is no evidence the store had any way to know it was there, proving constructive knowledge is difficult.
• Quick cleanups destroy evidence.: If a store mops up a spill before it can be documented — or before its duration can be established — you lose critical evidence about how long the hazard existed.
• Internal records become crucial.: Inspection logs, cleaning schedules, maintenance reports, and incident report forms all speak to whether the business had procedures in place — and whether it followed them. When these records show gaps between inspections, they support constructive knowledge arguments.
• Employee testimony matters more.: Employees who saw the condition, were told about it, or noted it in the ordinary course of work can establish actual knowledge.

What Evidence to Gather After a Slip and Fall

Given this knowledge standard, the evidence you preserve immediately after a slip and fall directly affects your ability to prove your case:

• Photograph the scene immediately: Before the substance is cleaned up, photograph the floor, the liquid or substance, the surrounding area, and any signage — or the lack of it. If the substance has spread, dried edges, footprints, or shopping cart tracks through it, photograph those details — they suggest the condition had been there for some time.
• Note the time and any relevant conditions: How long had the substance been visible? Were there footprints or scuff marks through it? Was there a cart or product display nearby that could have been the source? These observations support constructive knowledge arguments.
• Identify witnesses: Customers and employees who observed the condition before your fall — or who saw the area in the time leading up to the incident — are valuable witnesses to the duration of the hazard.
• Request an incident report: Ask the business to prepare a written incident report on the spot. This establishes that the business was put on notice of the fall. Preserve your copy.
• Preserve your clothing and footwear: These can be relevant evidence. Do not wash or discard the items you were wearing.
• Request surveillance footage immediately: Many businesses’ surveillance systems overwrite footage within 24 to 72 hours. Your attorney can send an immediate preservation demand — but only if you involve an attorney quickly.

Comparative Fault in Slip and Fall Cases

Under Florida’s modified comparative fault rule — changed by HB 837 in 2023 — your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault. If you were looking at your phone, carrying items that blocked your view of the floor, or entering an area marked with warning signs, the defense will argue that your inattention contributed to the fall.

The 51% bar applies: a plaintiff exactly 50% at fault can still recover, but at 51% or more, you cannot recover at all. Defense counsel raises this argument regularly in slip and fall cases — one more reason to document the hazard thoroughly. A prominent, long-existing puddle in the main aisle is harder to blame on plaintiff inattention than a freshly tracked-in liquid near an entrance on a rainy day.

Florida’s 2-Year Statute of Limitations Applies to Slip and Fall Cases

HB 837’s reduction of the statute of limitations from four years to two applies to slip and fall cases. You have two years from the date of your fall to file a personal injury lawsuit. If a government entity owns or operates the property where you fell, pre-suit notice requirements add procedural steps that must be completed even earlier.

Do not wait. The evidence that supports constructive knowledge — inspection records, surveillance footage, employee testimony — is more accessible and reliable when pursued quickly.

Working with an Attorney After HB 837

Slip and fall claims demand strong evidence of the business’s knowledge, and HB 837’s 51% comparative fault bar gives businesses’ insurers a stronger incentive to fight valid claims. Working with a personal injury attorney from the start of your case — not after months of failed insurance negotiations — is more important under the current law than it was before HB 837.

Attorney Eric A. Hernandez at HLM Injury Lawyers understands the §768.0755 knowledge standard and what evidence it requires. He has spent more than 25 years representing injury victims throughout South Florida and knows how to build cases that hold up against the defenses businesses and their insurers raise.

Contact HLM Injury Lawyers — Free Consultation

Florida slip and fall victims face a real burden of proof and a tighter filing deadline — but a well-documented case with the right attorney puts you in a strong position to pursue full compensation. If you were injured in a slip and fall at a Broward County business, do not wait.

Call HLM Injury Lawyers today for a free consultation.

(305) 842-2100 3301 N. University Dr., Suite 100 Coral Springs, FL 33065

Serving Coral Springs, Parkland, Coconut Creek, Margate, Tamarac, Pompano Beach, and all of Broward County. Spanish-language service available.