Florida Slip and Fall Accident Funding

Two years for a negligence claim accruing on or after March 24, 2023, following the shortening from four years under 2023's HB 837 (Fla. Stat. § 95.11). Claims accruing before that date remain subject to the prior four-year period — the accrual date, not the filing date, controls which limitations period applies.

Florida shifted from pure comparative negligence to a modified comparative-negligence, 51% bar system under HB 837 (Fla. Stat. § 768.81): a plaintiff found more than 50% at fault recovers nothing. Florida also has a distinctive, slip-and-fall-specific statute: Fla. Stat. § 768.0755 places the burden on the plaintiff, in a transitory-foreign-substance case at a business establishment, to prove the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Constructive knowledge can be shown circumstantially — that the substance was on the floor long enough that ordinary care should have discovered it, or that the condition occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable. This statute does not disturb the general common-law duty of care outside the transitory-substance context.

No statutory cap on economic or non-economic damages in an ordinary premises-liability slip-and-fall case (Florida's prior medical-malpractice non-economic caps were struck down and do not apply to general premises claims).

Pre-judgment interest is generally unavailable on unliquidated tort damages such as pain and suffering before a verdict is rendered.

Filed in the Florida county where the accident occurred or where the defendant resides, has its principal place of business, or maintains an agent (Fla. Stat. § 47.011).

Florida has no dedicated consumer litigation funding statute. No statutory cap.

What makes Florida's transitory-substance statute different from an ordinary notice standard?

Fla. Stat. § 768.0755 specifically governs falls caused by spilled liquids or similar substances at a business, putting the burden on the plaintiff to show the business knew or should have known of the hazard and failed to act on that knowledge in a timely way.

This is a narrower, more plaintiff-facing burden than the general common-law duty that applies to other hazard types, such as a broken step or a structural defect. Underwriting a Florida claim requires identifying which standard applies to the specific hazard at issue, since the evidence needed to satisfy each differs substantially.

How did the 2023 tort-reform law change Florida slip-and-fall exposure?

HB 837 moved Florida from pure comparative negligence to a 51% bar and shortened the general negligence statute of limitations from four years to two, for any claim accruing after March 24, 2023, a significant tightening of the rules for injured plaintiffs statewide going forward.

A claim that would have survived a 40% fault finding under the old pure-comparative regime is unaffected by the change. A claim where the plaintiff's share of fault approaches or exceeds half, however, is now at risk of a complete bar rather than simply a reduced recovery, a materially different calculus than before 2023.

Does the accrual date affect which rules apply to an older Florida claim?

Yes. Because HB 837 applies prospectively rather than retroactively, a fall that occurred before March 24, 2023 is generally still governed by the prior four-year limitations period and the pre-reform, pure comparative-fault framework that applied to Florida claims at that earlier time.

Confirming the exact accrual date and which statutory regime governs is a threshold step in any Florida claim. It changes both the filing deadline and the fault standard that will ultimately apply at trial, so it should be resolved before the case is otherwise evaluated.