Case Background
Sarah Suarez and her husband, Nestor Suarez, lived in Miami-Dade County, Florida. On February 27, 2022, Sarah visited a Publix supermarket located at 8601 NW 186 Street, Miami. The store sat on property owned by Regency Centers, L.P. Both companies operated and maintained the premises. Sarah was there as a customer and business invitee.
Cause
As Sarah walked back to her car through the parking lot, she stepped onto a deteriorated section of asphalt. The surface contained a hole, a vertical edge, and a level change. This created a hazardous walking condition. The area was commonly used by shoppers. The plaintiffs claimed Publix and Regency failed to inspect, maintain, or repair the surface. They also alleged both companies knew, or should have known, about the unsafe condition. Neither defendant warned customers, including Sarah, about the danger.
Injury
Sarah tripped and fell on the damaged asphalt. She suffered serious and permanent physical injuries. These included bodily harm, scarring, and impairment. The fall also caused pain, emotional distress, and worsening of a prior condition. Her ability to enjoy life and carry out daily activities changed significantly.
Damages
Sarah sought compensation for her injuries, pain, and medical costs. These included past and future treatments, hospital stays, and lost earnings. Nestor Suarez filed a loss of consortium claim. He claimed loss of companionship, emotional support, and economic strain. He also assisted in her care and expected these burdens to continue.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: Sarah Suarez | Nestor Suarez
Counsel for Plaintiff: Andrea Abad | Hugo L. Garcia | Elizabeth Hernandez
Expert Witness for Plaintiff: Julianne Frain | Thomas J. Lodge
Defendants: Publix Super Markets, Inc. | Regency Centers, L.P.
Counsel for Defendant: Kerri Elizabeth Utter | Michael P. Logan | Rebecca V. Aroca
Expert Witness for Defendant: Carlos Lavernia
Claims
Count I: Negligence claim by Sarah Suarez against Publix
Count II: Negligence claim by Sarah Suarez against Regency
Count III: Loss of consortium claim by Nestor Suarez against Publix
Count IV: Loss of consortium claim by Nestor Suarez against Regency
The Plaintiffs requested damages exceeding $30,000 from each defendant, along with interest, costs, and any relief the court deemed appropriate.
Defense
Regency Centers, L.P. denied nearly all material allegations in the Complaint, asserting that it lacked knowledge to confirm key claims and therefore demanded strict proof. In its Affirmative Defenses, Regency argued the Complaint failed to state a valid legal claim and contended that any injury to Sarah Suarez resulted from the actions of third parties or from the Plaintiff’s own negligence. Regency invoked Florida’s comparative fault and assumption of risk doctrines, maintaining the alleged hazard was open and obvious, and thus not actionable.
The Defendant further asserted that it neither had actual nor constructive knowledge of the condition described and that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages. Regency also claimed set-offs for collateral sources and pre-existing conditions that may have contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries. The Defendant reserved the right to assert additional defenses and demanded a jury trial.
Jury Verdict
On May 20, 2025, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendants, Publix Super Markets, Inc. and Regency Centers, L.P., finding that neither defendant was negligent in the maintenance of the premises. As a result, the jury concluded that no legal cause of injury was attributable to either defendant and awarded zero damages to Plaintiffs, Sarah Suarez and Nestor Suarez, effectively ruling against all claims brought in the lawsuit.
