Florida Woman Wins $11.3M Verdict in Target Parking Lot Fall

Florida Woman Awarded $11.3 Million After Severe Injuries from Unmarked Parking Lot Hazard

A jury in Orange County Circuit Court has awarded a 44-year-old woman more than $11.3 million after she suffered devastating leg and ankle injuries in a Target parking lot. The verdict, handed down October 17, holds Target Corporation and Site Centers Corp., the owner of Winter Garden Village shopping center, responsible for a hazardous parking lot condition that attorneys say violated building codes.

The $11,391,183.28 judgment represents one of the larger premises liability verdicts in recent Florida slip-and-fall cases and sends a clear message about the financial consequences retailers face when they fail to maintain safe conditions for shoppers.

The Incident and Injuries

It happened on December 23, 2019—right in the thick of holiday shopping season. The plaintiff had gone to the Target on Daniels Road in Winter Garden with her daughter. As she walked through the parking lot carrying her child, she stepped on an unmarked seam where asphalt met a concrete gutter on a landscaping island curb.

The abrupt elevation change caused her left ankle to twist and fracture. When she fell, she also broke her right tibia, fibula, and lateral malleolus—three critical bones in her lower leg. According to her attorneys, that seam shouldn't have been there, or at least should have been marked. They argued it violated building codes designed to prevent exactly this type of accident.

The injuries required extensive surgical intervention. Surgeons performed open reduction internal fixation with an intramedullary nail to repair her tibia, external fixation to stabilize the fractures, and posterior malleolus repair. The procedures were necessary to restore basic function, but they left her with permanent hardware in her leg and ongoing complications.

Long-Term Impact on the Plaintiff

Nearly five years later, the woman still lives with the consequences. She experiences chronic pain and functional limitations. The hardware implanted during surgery remains in her body, a permanent reminder of that December afternoon. What should have been a routine shopping trip during the holidays turned into a life-altering event with repercussions that extend far beyond the initial hospital stay.

Legal Claims and Negligence Allegations

The plaintiff's legal team from Morgan & Morgan—attorneys Matt Morgan, Fan Li, and Perry Nava—argued that both Target and Site Centers failed in their duty to maintain a safe premises. The heart of their case centered on that unmarked seam between the asphalt and concrete gutter, which they contended created an unreasonable risk to shoppers.

Building codes exist precisely to prevent these situations. They establish clear standards for elevation changes and transitions in paved surfaces. The lawsuit maintained that the defendants not only failed to build or maintain the area according to those standards but also failed to warn customers about the hazard.

Under Florida premises liability law, property owners and managers have a legal obligation to keep their property reasonably safe and to alert visitors to known dangers. The question before the jury was whether Target and Site Centers had met that obligation.

The Jury's Decision

After reviewing the evidence, jurors found the defendants 90% at fault for the woman's injuries. They attributed 10% comparative fault to the plaintiff herself—acknowledging perhaps some minor inattention on her part while navigating the parking lot with her daughter.

But the jury clearly determined that the bulk of responsibility lay with the property owner and retailer for creating and failing to fix a hazardous condition. The $11.3 million award reflects their assessment of the woman's pain and suffering, medical expenses, and lost earning capacity resulting from injuries that will affect her for the rest of her life.

Rejected Settlement Offer

Before trial, the defendants offered $250,000 to settle the case. The plaintiff and her attorneys turned it down and rolled the dice with a jury instead.

That decision proved wise. The final verdict came in at more than 45 times the settlement offer—a vindication of the plaintiff's choice to have her day in court and let a jury hear the full scope of what she'd endured.

Implications for Retailers and Consumers

This verdict should get the attention of retailers and shopping center operators across the country. For businesses, it highlights the very real financial risks that come with inadequate premises maintenance. Insurance industry analysts sometimes call verdicts in this range "nuclear awards," particularly because they far exceed the typical commercial general liability policy limits of $1 million to $2 million. That gap between standard coverage and actual jury awards means retailers can find themselves on the hook for millions in out-of-pocket exposure when they don't properly maintain their properties.

For Site Centers as the property owner and Target as the tenant, the case demonstrates that both can be held liable for dangerous conditions in common areas like parking lots. It's not enough for the store to point at the landlord or vice versa. Both have responsibilities to ensure that paved surfaces, especially transitions between different materials, meet code standards and get regularly inspected for hazards.

What This Means for Shoppers

For the average consumer, this case offers a stark reminder that parking lots harbor hidden dangers. This woman was doing something completely ordinary—walking through a parking lot during holiday shopping with her daughter. There was nothing inherently risky about her activity. Yet an unmarked, code-violating seam turned that routine moment into a catastrophe.

The takeaway isn't that shoppers should live in fear of parking lots. Rather, it's that slip-and-fall accidents don't always stem from the victim's carelessness. Sometimes they happen because property owners and managers fail to meet their legal obligations. When you're injured on someone else's property, it's worth consulting an attorney who handles premises liability cases to determine whether negligence played a role.

Building Code Compliance and Maintenance Standards

The allegation that the seam violated building codes proved central to the plaintiff's case. These codes don't exist as bureaucratic red tape. They're developed based on engineering principles and accident data to prevent injuries. Standards for elevation changes in paved surfaces typically require that transitions be gradual, clearly marked, or eliminated altogether. When property managers ignore these requirements, they're not just breaking rules—they're creating dangerous conditions.

Regular parking lot inspections should be standard practice for any retail property. That means checking for uneven surfaces, cracks, drainage issues, and unmarked transitions between paving materials. Smart property managers document these inspections and any corrective action taken. That documentation can demonstrate a good-faith effort to maintain safe conditions should an accident occur.

The $11.3 million verdict in this case makes clear that juries will hold retailers and property managers accountable when maintenance failures lead to serious injuries. For businesses, the lesson is straightforward: proper premises maintenance and adequate insurance coverage aren't optional. For injured consumers, the verdict illustrates that when negligence can be proven, substantial compensation may be available through the legal system—even when defendants initially offer only a fraction of what injuries are actually worth.