Customer Wins Slip-and-Fall Case Against Winn-Dixie
Table of Contents
Case Background
Stephany Elaine Jones walked into a Winn-Dixie supermarket on Ives Dairy Road in Miami on the afternoon of February 26, 2023. She had come as a regular customer, expecting a clean, safe environment. What began as a routine grocery trip ended in a painful fall when she slipped on a liquid substance near one of the store aisles. That single misstep changed her life, leading to lasting injuries and a lawsuit filed weeks later in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court.
At the time of the incident, the store had been under the ownership and control of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., a Florida corporation actively operating in the region. Jones claimed that the supermarket failed to maintain its premises and protect customers from foreseeable hazards. She filed a negligence suit in March 2023, alleging the store had breached its legal duty by allowing a dangerous condition to persist.
Cause that led to the dispute
According to Jones’s complaint, the cause of her fall had been clear: Winn-Dixie allowed a liquid to remain on the floor without cleaning it or warning customers. She stated that no signs, barricades, or caution indicators had been placed near the substance. She also argued that store employees either knew about the spill or would have discovered it through reasonable inspections. Her attorneys pointed out that the substance had likely been on the ground long enough to put the staff on notice. She said the hazard either happened regularly or had lasted long enough that proper store protocol should have kicked in.
Injuries suffered
The fall left Jones with more than temporary discomfort. She claimed to suffer serious and permanent injuries, both physical and emotional. Her lawsuit described ongoing pain, disfigurement, disability, mental anguish, and the inability to enjoy life as she once had. She also cited financial harm, pointing to medical bills and a diminished ability to earn a living. The injuries, she said, would likely require future care and would continue to affect her daily routine. These claims made up the heart of her demand for compensation.
Damages Sought
Jones incurred medical expenses related to her treatment following the fall. In addition, she experienced pain and suffering in the past and is expected to continue facing it in the future, reflecting the long-term impact of the incident. These damages included the costs of medical care as well as compensation for physical pain, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Jones, represented by Jordan Kirby of Rubenstein Law, filed the case on March 19, 2023. Her attorneys built the case around the premise that Winn-Dixie had failed to act as a reasonably careful business should. They argued that failing to monitor the premises or place warning signs where needed amounted to clear negligence. They stressed that the store owed customers a duty to regularly inspect for and correct hazards.
Winn-Dixie responded in May 2023 with a full denial of liability. Their attorneys, led by Edwardo Cosio of Cosio Law Group, presented several affirmative defenses. They claimed the store had no notice actual or constructive of the spill. They also argued that Jones had failed to watch where she was walking and bore the blame for her own fall. Further, the defense suggested that an unknown third-party customer might have caused the spill just before the incident, leaving store staff with no reasonable chance to respond.
The defense insisted the liquid was open and obvious. They said that if Jones had exercised reasonable care, she would have avoided the danger. They also contended that if she had suffered damages, those injuries were exaggerated and could have been minimized through better self-care after the fall.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Stephany Elaine Jones
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Jordan Kirby | Sofia Jordi
Expert for Plaintiff: Nicholas David Alexander Suite | Dillion Feierstadt | Ivan Islamaj | Jose Pizarro | Amy Starry | Elena Sucre
Defendant(s): Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Edwardo Cosio
Expert for Defendant: Sergio Alejandro Glait
Key Remarks by Counsel
In closing arguments, Jones’s attorney reminded the jury that Winn Dixie had complete control of its premises and the duty to keep it safe. He emphasized the preventability of the fall, noting that something as simple as a wet floor sign or a timely inspection could have spared his client from injury.
Defense counsel pushed back firmly, reiterating that there had been no credible evidence the store knew about the spill. They argued that the absence of witnesses confirming how long the substance had been there worked in their favour. They told the jury that Jones had failed to take reasonable care while walking and that her own inattentiveness had played a major role in the accident.
Claims Asserted
Jones's complaint included a negligence claim based on a breach of the duty of care owed to customers. She alleged that the store had failed to inspect the premises, clean hazardous conditions, and warn customers of dangers. She supported this with statements about the regularity of spills and the absence of safety measures at the scene.
She also claimed damages for bodily harm, emotional trauma, and economic loss. The lawsuit emphasized that the injuries would not only persist but would continue to affect her ability to work and live a normal life.
Defense Arguments
Winn Dixie’s primary defense was that it lacked notice of the dangerous condition. They argued that Florida law required proof the business knew or should have known about the hazard. The defense emphasized that no store employee saw the spill before the fall and that no customer had warned them. They also argued that Jones’s fall resulted from her own negligence, including not paying attention and failing to use ordinary care.
They claimed that the liquid was so clearly visible that any reasonable person should have avoided it. Finally, they raised the possibility that a third-party customer had created the hazard and left the scene before staff could react.
Jury Verdict
On April 4, 2025, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Stephany Elaine Jones. They agreed that Winn Dixie had been negligent and that this negligence had directly caused her injury. However, they also found Jones partially at fault. The jury assigned 70% of the blame to Winn Dixie and 30% to Jones.
They awarded a total of $352,550 in damages. Once the court applied the comparative negligence rule, Jones’s final compensation reflected her portion of responsibility. The decision reinforced that while property owners must ensure safety, injured parties also bear some duty to exercise care.
Court Documents