After a fall, ask the business to keep footage from before the incident as well as the incident itself. Earlier recordings help show when the hazard appeared and which workers walked past it. Put the requested hours in writing while those recordings still exist.
How long do stores keep security footage?
The court records on this page describe storage from one or two weeks through six months. A store's saved clip can be minutes long.
Within days, ask in writing for the video, naming the date, exact time, spot, and hours before the fall. You do not need a lawyer to send that request. Missing footage does not automatically decide who wins the injury claim.
Store video facts
Last updated
- Storage periods
- Store video lasted between one or two weeks and six months in court records.
- Saved clips
- In these records, saved clips lasted about eight minutes to two hours.
- Before a letter
- A store’s video duty can start without a letter in California, Georgia, and Nevada.
- Federal penalties
- Since December 1, 2015, federal courts' strongest penalties for lost electronic video have required intent.
- Request and duty
- An injured person's request can help create a duty to keep evidence in Illinois.
- Careless loss
- A careless loss of video permits a jury instruction only in rare Texas cases.
Sources: the California bar record and California grocery record; the Texas Supreme Court's video ruling and Florida Third District Court of Appeal's saved-video ruling; the California Court of Appeal's school-video ruling, Georgia Supreme Court's evidence ruling, and Nevada Supreme Court's evidence ruling; the Illinois Supreme Court's evidence ruling; and the federal rule for lost electronic information. Describe your injury in the free AI calculator with attorney review.
For injury values and the proof needed against the owner, read the slip and fall settlement guide.
How long did stores keep video in court cases?
The court records describe periods as short as one or two weeks and as long as six months. These are a small set of cases, not a survey of all stores, so make your request within days.
A magistrate judge's recommendation is a report from one federal judge to another judge.
| Business or property | How long video lasted | Court record |
|---|---|---|
Brookshire Brothers grocery store | The court described a recording loop of approximately 30 days. | Texas Supreme Court, July 3, 2014; grocery fall. |
Fiesta Mart grocery store | The recommendation describes recording over footage approximately every 30 days. | Federal magistrate judge in Texas, recommendation, May 21, 2024; store fall. |
Albertsons grocery store | Workers described 45 days to six months for a system with 48 cameras. | California Court of Appeal, December 10, 2008; snack-aisle fall. |
Los Angeles bar | Witnesses described automatic recording over video within one or two weeks. | California Court of Appeal, September 1, 2026, unpublished; dart injury, not a fall. |
California high school | Video was automatically erased 14 days after the incident. | California Court of Appeal, May 24, 2023; a school, not a store. |
Walmart in Florida | The policy permitted recording over unneeded footage after 30 days. | Florida Third District Court of Appeal, March 12, 2025; store fall. |
Outback Steakhouse | The court described storage for about 14 days. | Federal court in Georgia, September 30, 2021; restaurant fall. |
Kroger | The hard drives kept video for 17 days before erasure and reuse. | Georgia Court of Appeals, November 29, 2012; grocery fall. |
Walmart in Nevada | The last possible erasure date was about 45 days after the fall. The court could not identify the exact day. | Federal court in Nevada, November 20, 2013; store fall. |
Walmart | The opinion described destruction after 30 days in normal business practice. | Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, October 14, 2014, unpublished; the court did not decide the lost-video issue. |
Pilot Travel Centers | Two weeks. | Earlier case described by the federal court in Georgia in the 2021 Outback order. |
Benihana | 90 days. | Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2022, unpublished; employment case, not a fall. |
Sources: Brookshire Brothers v. Aldridge, Texas Supreme Court, July 3, 2014; Portillo v. Fiesta Mart, federal court in Texas, recommendation, May 21, 2024; New Albertsons v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, December 10, 2008; Becker v. Artisanal Brewers Collective, California Court of Appeal, September 1, 2026, unpublished; Victor Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, May 24, 2023, published; Wal-Mart Stores East v. Garcia Pineda, Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal, March 12, 2025; Lamb v. Outback Steakhouse, federal court in Georgia, September 30, 2021; Kroger v. Walters, Georgia Court of Appeals, November 29, 2012; Patton v. Wal-Mart Stores, federal court in Nevada, November 20, 2013; Bradley v. Wal-Mart, 6th Circuit, October 14, 2014; Duong v. Benihana, 3rd Circuit, April 15, 2022
Does the store save the whole video of your fall?
The saved clips in these records run from about eight minutes to two hours. An incident clip can leave out the earlier hours that show when the hazard appeared.
- The Texas Supreme Court described Brookshire Brothers keeping approximately eight minutes.
- The federal Fiesta Mart recommendation in Texas described approximately 42 minutes before the fall and ten minutes after.
- The Florida appeals opinion described Walmart saving one hour before and one hour after the reported time, for two hours total.
- The federal Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals described a Georgia Publix policy saving 30 minutes before and 30 minutes after the fall.
- An unpublished federal Sixth Circuit opinion described a Walmart policy saving the hour before an incident through the incident.
- The unpublished California bar opinion described 13 cameras but about 21 minutes saved from three cameras.
- A 2016 federal Nevada order quoted Walmart's procedure requiring at least an hour before and an hour after. The court said the video Walmart gave the customer ran about 50 minutes and ended about ten to 13 minutes before the fall.
Asking for more video after it was erased
A man slipped near a display table in a Texas Brookshire Brothers on September 2, 2004. The store saved about eight minutes. In August 2005, his lawyer sought about two and a half additional hours, but the recording had been overwritten almost a year before, according to the Texas Supreme Court's 2014 opinion.
The jury awarded $1,063,664.99 after receiving an instruction about the lost recording, but the Texas Supreme Court ordered a new trial. The court found no evidence of an intent to hide the recording, and the man still had evidence with which to present his claim. The court assumed a duty to keep video without deciding whether one existed. It said the store had kept exactly the footage requested, and that destruction of all footage of the incident might produce a different result. Name the time period you need in the first request.
Sources: Brookshire Brothers v. Aldridge, Texas Supreme Court, July 3, 2014; Portillo v. Fiesta Mart, federal court in Texas, recommendation, May 21, 2024; Wal-Mart Stores East v. Garcia Pineda, Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal, March 12, 2025; ML Healthcare Services v. Publix Super Markets, 11th Circuit, February 7, 2018; Corley v. Wal-Mart, 6th Circuit, No. 15-5202; Becker v. Artisanal Brewers Collective, California Court of Appeal, September 1, 2026, unpublished; Stedeford v. Wal-Mart Stores, federal court in Nevada, June 24, 2016
Does a store have to keep video after a slip and fall?
The duty to keep video starts at different points under different state rules. A letter is not always needed before that duty begins.
Electronic information is information stored on a computer or recording system, such as a store's digital video.
| State | When the duty starts | Court, date, and case |
|---|---|---|
Texas | The Texas Supreme Court says the duty starts when a party knows or should know a claim has a substantial chance of being filed and that evidence it controls matters to that claim. | Grocery fall; Texas Supreme Court, July 3, 2014. |
California | The California Court of Appeal requires objective notice that litigation is probable and likely, not a mere possibility. Falls predictably produce lawsuits, but a fall by itself does not always start the duty. In a later dental-office trip case, the owner was not shown to know of a serious injury before erasure, so no duty arose. Tell the owner about your injury in writing within days. | School video, May 24, 2023; trip outside a dental office, August 28, 2026. Both decisions are from the California Court of Appeal. School decision: published. Dental-office decision: unpublished. |
Florida | The Florida Supreme Court said the duty starts when litigation should reasonably be foreseen. The Third District Court of Appeal later said it must arise from a contract, statute, or discovery request, rather than common law. Do not rely on a letter by itself in Florida. | Florida Supreme Court, July 9, 2015, not a store case; Third District Court of Appeal, March 12, 2025, Walmart fall. |
Georgia | The Georgia Supreme Court said reasonably foreseeable litigation is enough without notice from the injured person. An injury plus a manager's questions, or an investigation by itself, is not enough. The Kroger lost-video ruling stood without a letter. | Hospital case, Georgia Supreme Court, June 29, 2015; grocery fall, Georgia Court of Appeals, November 29, 2012. |
Nevada | The Nevada Supreme Court says reasonably foreseeable litigation gives notice of a potential claim. The court's 2006 opinion described an earlier water-park visitor's broken hip and ambulance trip as making litigation foreseeable. In the federal Walmart case, the same-day injury report and plans for medical care gave notice; a lawyer's letter came eight days later. | 7-Eleven fall and an earlier water-park case discussed by the Nevada Supreme Court, May 11, 2006; Walmart fall, federal court in Nevada, June 24, 2016. |
Illinois | The Illinois Supreme Court says there is no general duty, but an additional fact such as the injured person's request to keep evidence can create one. | Separate claim for lost evidence, Illinois Supreme Court, 2012. The opinion does not concern a penalty in the injury trial. |
Arizona | The duty begins when a party reasonably anticipates the lawsuit. | State rule for electronic information, effective January 1, 2021. |
Washington | The Washington Court of Appeals describes no general duty, but a letter before suit can create one in some circumstances. | Washington Court of Appeals: Cook, 2015, published; Reid, unpublished. |
New York | The person asking for a remedy must show an obligation to keep evidence, blameworthy conduct, and relevance. A careless loss requires proof that the missing evidence mattered; intentional loss carries a presumption of relevance. | Business dispute, New York Court of Appeals, December 15, 2015. |
Federal courts | The rule covers information that should have been kept because litigation was anticipated or underway. | Federal rule on electronic information. |
The store knew about a claim without a letter
A man slipped on a piece of banana in a Georgia Kroger meat department on May 25, 2008. He said he seemed fine and did not threaten to sue. The co-manager watched the video but did not save it, and it was erased after 17 days.
The Georgia Court of Appeals' November 29, 2012 opinion says the man returned a week and a half to two weeks later and spoke of a coming doctor visit. The store's incident report said it was prepared in anticipation of litigation. No letter had been sent.
The trial court stopped Kroger from contesting fault, and the jury awarded $1,689,456 in damages and $675,782.40 in fees. The appeals court upheld the lost-video ruling. A separate evidence error led it to reverse the money award and order a new trial on causation, damages, and fees.
Report the fall and your injury to the store before you leave.
A family member's request gave notice
A woman fell on a wet floor in a Nevada 7-Eleven on January 11, 1999. Her medical bills exceeded $201,000. Within a week, her sister asked for the incident report and tape. The Nevada Supreme Court's May 11, 2006 opinion says the tape went to Southland under company policy and then to its insurer, where it was lost.
The jury found for the people who ran the store. The court ordered a new trial for two errors: the judge had refused an instruction about the missing tape and had made an error concerning other payments the woman received. The sister's request gave sufficient notice of the claim. The opinion does not show that the woman won the new trial.
Send a written request wherever the fall happened. A request is one way to create a duty in Illinois and Washington. In the Nevada Supreme Court's 7-Eleven case, the sister's request gave sufficient notice. In the 2013 federal Walmart case in Nevada, the lawyer's letter created the duty. In the 2016 federal Walmart case in Nevada, the injury report made a claim foreseeable that same day; the letter followed eight days later. Save proof of what the store received.
State slip and fall guides: Texas; California; Georgia; Nevada; Arizona; New York.
Sources: Brookshire Brothers v. Aldridge, Texas Supreme Court, July 3, 2014; Victor Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, May 24, 2023, published; Weathers v. Choe, California Court of Appeal, August 28, 2026, unpublished; League of Women Voters v. Detzner, Florida Supreme Court, July 9, 2015; Wal-Mart Stores East v. Garcia Pineda, Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal, March 12, 2025; Phillips v. Harmon, Georgia Supreme Court, June 29, 2015; Kroger v. Walters, Georgia Court of Appeals, November 29, 2012; Bass-Davis v. Davis, Nevada Supreme Court, May 11, 2006; Patton v. Wal-Mart Stores, federal court in Nevada, November 20, 2013; Stedeford v. Wal-Mart Stores, federal court in Nevada, June 24, 2016; Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Illinois Supreme Court, 2012; Arizona Supreme Court Order R-20-0006; Cook v. Tarbert Logging, Washington Court of Appeals, 2015; Reid v. Norix Group, Washington Court of Appeals, unpublished; Pegasus Aviation v. Varig Logistica, New York Court of Appeals, December 15, 2015; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37
How do you request security footage from a store?
Write to the business within days, identify your fall, and specify the recordings and records you want kept. You can send the request yourself; the Illinois Supreme Court recognizes an injured person's request to keep evidence.
A preservation letter is a written request to keep evidence. A personal injury demand letter asks the insurer for money; this request asks the store to keep recordings and records.
Identify the fall and injury
State the date, the exact spot, and the time after checking your phone or receipt. Describe the fall, what you fell on, and the injury.
Name the hours and camera views
Request every view of the spot for several hours before and after the fall. Explain that you need to see when the hazard appeared and which workers passed it. Avoid asking for weeks from every camera in the store.
Ask for the video and related records
Ask the business to keep the recording and send you a copy. Include the cleaning and inspection records for that day and the incident report in your request.
Send the request to the right recipients
Deliver the request to the store, its corporate office, and its registered agent. Choose a delivery method that leaves proof of receipt, and save the request and that proof.
Check the recording you receive
Compare the video with the hours and camera views you asked for. Follow up if a period or a view is missing.
Sample request to keep the video
I fell on [date] at [exact time, checked against my phone or receipt] at [exact spot in the store]. I fell on [what caused the fall], and I was injured [describe the injury].
Please keep the video from [camera views of the spot] covering [start time] through [end time], including the hours before and after my fall. The video should show [the hazard, workers nearby, and how long the hazard was there]. Please send me a copy of that footage.
Please also keep and send copies of the cleaning and inspection records for that day and the incident report. Please let me know which recordings and records you have kept.
My contact details are [name, mailing address, phone number, and email].
Find out what your injury claim is worth with the free AI calculator with attorney review.
Sources: Wal-Mart Stores East v. Garcia Pineda, Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal, March 12, 2025; Fidler v. AIKG, Georgia Court of Appeals, No. A26A1558, September 29, 2026; ML Healthcare Services v. Publix Super Markets, 11th Circuit, February 7, 2018; Asfaw v. Wal-Mart Stores, federal court in Nevada, May 19, 2021; Becker v. Artisanal Brewers Collective, California Court of Appeal, September 1, 2026, unpublished; Gonzalez v. Interstate Cleaning, California Court of Appeal, certified for publication November 21, 2024; Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Illinois Supreme Court, 2012
Why do requests for store video fail?
An incorrect time, the wrong recipient, or a missing camera view can leave you without the evidence you requested. A letter that gave notice still did not produce a penalty in the Fiesta Mart recommendation.
Sanctions are penalties a judge orders within a case. The table shows the result of each request, including decisions that sent a case back for another ruling.
| What went wrong | Court and date | Result | What to do instead |
|---|---|---|---|
A short saved clip | Federal magistrate judge in Texas, May 21, 2024; recommendation in the Fiesta Mart fall case. | The recommendation found that the duty started when the letter arrived. The store saved 52 minutes out of seven requested hours, but the recommendation found no bad faith. | Name the hours you need, ask for a copy, and check its start and end times. |
Wrong address and no request to the judge | California Court of Appeal, November 21, 2024; published shopping-center fall decision. | The owners said the video request went to a nonexistent claims department. The woman who fell on oranges never asked the trial court for a remedy over the missing recording. The appeals court upheld her loss. | Send the request to the store, corporate office, and registered agent. Keep proof of delivery and ask the court to address missing video. |
A promise without a full copy | California Court of Appeal, September 1, 2026; unpublished bar case involving a dart injury, not a fall. | The man asked the next night and emailed within two days. The manager promised to work with the head of information technology to keep the video, and a lawyer sent a letter. The bar saved about 21 minutes. No intentional destruction was found. The judge refused a penalty but gave a jury instruction; the jury found for the bar. | Ask for a copy and confirm that it covers the requested times and views. |
Wrong time | Florida Third District Court of Appeal, March 12, 2025; Walmart fall. | The letter gave a date but no time. The woman's side reported 10:40 PM, but the fall happened at 11:45 PM. The two saved hours missed the fall. Her jury win was reversed for a new trial: no evidence showed intent to hide about two missing minutes, and Walmart had no chance to answer the instruction before the jury. The court treated video as electronically stored information. | Check the time against your phone or receipt and give both the date and exact time. |
A request for every camera over 35 days | Federal Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, February 7, 2018; Georgia Publix fall. | The court said the store might reasonably and in good faith have thought it did not have to comply with the broad request. No penalty was imposed. | Ask for the hours and camera views that matter to your fall. |
A broad letter challenged in court | Georgia Court of Appeals, September 29, 2026; go-kart injury, not a store fall. | The trial court found that the letter gave notice but called it overbroad, vague, and insufficient: it sought more than 30 days from many cameras without details. All three appeals judges threw out that ruling and rejected a reasonableness test for the letter. The question is whether litigation was reasonably foreseeable to whoever controlled the evidence. The trial court must decide again. The man has not won, and the new ruling can still change. | Identify the fall, injury, time, and views in your request so the store knows which evidence matters. |
Missing camera views | Federal court in Nevada, May 19, 2021; fall on a grape at a Las Vegas Walmart, with a claim involving back surgery. | A letter went out within two days. Walmart saved two views but not three others. The court denied the request for a remedy because the injured side speculated about what those three cameras showed. | Explain what each view should show: the hazard, nearby workers, and how long the hazard was there. |
Sources: Wal-Mart Stores East v. Garcia Pineda, Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal, March 12, 2025; Gonzalez v. Interstate Cleaning, California Court of Appeal, certified for publication November 21, 2024; Asfaw v. Wal-Mart Stores, federal court in Nevada, May 19, 2021; Becker v. Artisanal Brewers Collective, California Court of Appeal, September 1, 2026, unpublished; Portillo v. Fiesta Mart, federal court in Texas, recommendation, May 21, 2024; ML Healthcare Services v. Publix Super Markets, 11th Circuit, February 7, 2018; Fidler v. AIKG, Georgia Court of Appeals, No. A26A1558, September 29, 2026
What happens if the store deleted the video?
A missing recording does not automatically resolve your injury case. The judge considers the duty to keep it, the reason it was lost, and the evidence you can no longer use. Losing or destroying evidence that should have been kept is called spoliation.
| State or court | What a court can do | Limit |
|---|---|---|
Texas | The judge can give a lost-evidence instruction to the jury when the store specifically intended to hide evidence. | The Texas Supreme Court also requires that a lesser remedy would not be enough. A careless loss permits the instruction only in rare cases where the other side has permanently lost any real way to present its claim or defense. |
California | Careless erasure can bring a penalty after the duty starts. In the 2023 school-video case, the trial judge imposed penalties; the appeals court upheld the duty finding but sent the case back to consider whether lesser penalties would address the loss. | Routine, good-faith erasure is protected before the duty begins, not afterward. An instruction about concealed or destroyed evidence requires intent. In the 2008 Albertsons case, partial copies were saved and the rest erased; the appeals court threw out penalties because the laws on exchanging evidence before trial did not authorize them without an order, while leaving an instruction possible if intent was proved. |
Florida | The remedy for a store's lost evidence comes within the injury case. | The Florida Third District Court of Appeal's 2025 ruling requires intent for an instruction that missing electronic information was unfavorable. |
Georgia | A finding of lost evidence can create a presumption that the missing evidence would have hurt the party that lost it. The party gets a chance to answer or disprove that presumption. | The Georgia Court of Appeals described that rule in September 2026. A stronger penalty in the 2012 Kroger case stopped the store from contesting fault, but the money award was reversed for a separate evidence error. |
Nevada: physical evidence | For a careless loss, the jury is permitted to conclude that the missing evidence would have been unfavorable. Intent to harm creates a presumption that it would have been unfavorable. | The careless-loss instruction does not shift the burden of proof. The Nevada Supreme Court's 2006 case concerned a tape; its November 5, 2020 trucking decision continued to describe that rule for evidence other than electronic information. |
Nevada: electronic information | The state rule allows measures no greater than needed to address the harm from missing information. | The rule took effect March 1, 2019 and requires intent to deprive the other party before an unfavorable-evidence instruction. The Nevada Supreme Court confirmed its electronic-information scope in November 2020. Florida's appeals court and the federal Eleventh Circuit treat store video as electronic information. The older tape case does not promise a jury instruction for careless loss of digital store video. |
Federal courts | The strongest measures include telling a jury that missing electronic information would have been unfavorable. | Those measures require intent to deprive the other party of the information's use. The current federal rule dates from December 1, 2015. |
A separate lawsuit over missing evidence
The California Supreme Court ruled on May 11, 1998 that a party cannot face a separate lawsuit for intentional evidence loss known or reasonably discoverable before trial. The Florida Supreme Court ruled on July 7, 2005 that the remedy for losing a Walmart customer's requested video and shopping cart belonged in the injury case, not a separate lawsuit. The Illinois Supreme Court's 2012 decision concerned a separate claim for lost evidence but said there was no general duty to keep evidence. The injured workers lost that claim because they showed no special circumstance that created a duty; the decision does not establish a general right to sue over lost evidence.
When courts acted on lost store video
| Court order | What happened | Result and limit |
|---|---|---|
Federal court in Georgia, September 30, 2021 | A woman fell at Outback on February 21, 2019. She sent her letter on April 9, after the stated 14-day storage period. Within six days of the fall, the owner's risk-management employee had asked the restaurant for video, and a company witness said it still existed then. | The judge ordered a jury instruction presuming the video was relevant, favored the woman, and hurt Outback. Outback was allowed to answer or disprove that presumption. |
Federal court in Nevada, November 20, 2013 | A woman fell at Walmart on June 10, 2011. Her lawyer sent a request on July 6, and the claims handler confirmed receipt July 19. Older video was recorded over on or about July 25, the last possible date identified by the order. | The court found the letter created a duty and allowed an instruction against Walmart. The order came before the December 1, 2015 federal-rule change, which now requires intent for that instruction. |
Federal court in Nevada, June 24, 2016 | A woman slipped on liquid soap by a Pahrump Walmart self-checkout on December 11, 2013. The court found no intentional destruction, but found conscious disregard of the duty. | The court barred an innocent explanation for the missing video and evidence contradicting workers' conclusions about the liquid. It let the jury infer the video was unfavorable. The judge used the court's own authority to run the case and did not discuss the electronic-information rule, despite ruling after the December 2015 change. The two sides agreed to end the case on September 16, 2016; the order states no payment. The order does not promise the same result today. |
Sources: Brookshire Brothers v. Aldridge, Texas Supreme Court, July 3, 2014; California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030; Victor Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, May 24, 2023, published; California Evidence Code section 413; New Albertsons v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, December 10, 2008; Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, California Supreme Court, May 11, 1998; Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Florida Supreme Court, July 7, 2005; Wal-Mart Stores East v. Garcia Pineda, Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal, March 12, 2025; Fidler v. AIKG, Georgia Court of Appeals, No. A26A1558, September 29, 2026; Kroger v. Walters, Georgia Court of Appeals, November 29, 2012; Nevada Revised Statutes chapter 47, section 47.250; Bass-Davis v. Davis, Nevada Supreme Court, May 11, 2006; Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 37(e), effective March 1, 2019; MDB Trucking v. Versa Products, Nevada Supreme Court, November 5, 2020; ML Healthcare Services v. Publix Super Markets, 11th Circuit, February 7, 2018; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37; Lamb v. Outback Steakhouse, federal court in Georgia, September 30, 2021; Patton v. Wal-Mart Stores, federal court in Nevada, November 20, 2013; Stedeford v. Wal-Mart Stores, federal court in Nevada, June 24, 2016; Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Illinois Supreme Court, 2012
Do you have to keep your own evidence?
The duty to keep evidence applies to the injured person as well as the owner, as the Georgia Supreme Court explained on March 15, 2018.
- Take photographs of the hazard before anyone cleans it up.
- Collect the names and phone numbers of witnesses, and ask for your own copy of the incident report.
- Leave the shoes and clothes from the fall unwashed, and keep them.
Before planned surgery
The California Court of Appeal's unpublished February 26, 2026 decision concerned a woman who fell at Walmart and had neck surgery before an examination Walmart had requested. The trial court dismissed her claim, but the appeals court reversed. If surgery is coming, tell the other side in writing, and do not delay needed care.
Sources: Cooper Tire v. Koch, Georgia Supreme Court, March 15, 2018; Turner v. Walmart, California Court of Appeal, February 26, 2026, unpublished
Store security footage questions
How long do retail stores keep surveillance footage?
The court records collected here describe video storage from one or two weeks through six months. These cases are not a survey of all retailers. A store can save a short clip while the rest of the recording is erased, so ask for the hours leading up to your fall.
Does a store have to keep video after a slip and fall?
A store's duty to keep video can begin without a letter in California, Georgia, and Nevada when it knows or should know a claim is likely. Texas looks at a substantial chance of a claim and whether the evidence matters to it; California looks at litigation that is probable and likely. Illinois and Washington start from no general duty, but a request can help create one. The Florida Supreme Court said the duty starts when litigation should reasonably be foreseen, while the Third District Court of Appeal said it must arise from a contract, statute, or discovery request. Do not rely on a letter by itself in Florida. Report the fall and send a written request.
How long do places hold security footage?
The restaurant records include about 14 days at Outback, as a federal court in Georgia described it, and 90 days at Benihana, as an unpublished federal appeals opinion described it. An unpublished California appeals opinion about a bar describes one or two weeks. The Benihana opinion concerned employment, and the bar case concerned a dart injury rather than a fall.
How do I request security footage from a store?
Request the recordings in writing within days of the fall, naming the location and a precise period. Check the time against a receipt or your phone. Ask for the relevant views before and after the fall, the inspection and cleaning records, the incident report, and a copy of the video. Save proof of delivery to the store and its corporate office.
What is a preservation letter?
A preservation letter tells the business which evidence you want it to keep. Identify your fall, injury, location, time, and the recordings and records you need. The sample request on this page provides blanks for those details without making a legal threat.
Does a lawyer have to send a preservation letter?
A lawyer does not have to send the request for you. The Illinois Supreme Court recognizes a request by the injured person. In the Nevada 7-Eleven case, the injured woman's sister gave sufficient notice by requesting the tape and incident report.
Does a letter make the store keep the video?
A letter by itself does not make a store keep video in every state. A request gives the store notice and can help create a duty in Illinois and Washington. The Florida Supreme Court said the duty starts when litigation should reasonably be foreseen, while the Third District Court of Appeal said it must arise from a contract, statute, or discovery request. Do not rely on a letter by itself in Florida. In the Nevada Supreme Court's 7-Eleven case, the sister's request gave sufficient notice. In the 2013 federal Walmart case in Nevada, the lawyer's letter created the duty. In the 2016 federal Walmart case in Nevada, the same-day injury report made a claim foreseeable; a lawyer's letter followed eight days later.
What happens if the store deletes the video?
The court's response depends on the duty to keep the video and whether the loss was careless or intentional. Federal courts require intent to deprive the other party before the strongest measures for lost electronic information. California permits a lesser remedy for careless loss after the duty begins.
Can I sue a store just for deleting video?
In California and Florida, the remedy for lost video comes through the injury case rather than a separate lawsuit. California's Supreme Court rejected a separate lawsuit for intentional evidence loss known or reasonably discoverable before trial in 1998. Florida's Supreme Court put a store's lost-evidence remedy inside the injury case in 2005. The Illinois Supreme Court's 2012 opinion concerned a separate claim for lost evidence, but said there was no general duty to keep evidence. The injured workers lost that claim because they showed no special circumstance that created a duty; the decision does not establish a general right to sue over lost evidence.
Sources: Becker v. Artisanal Brewers Collective, California Court of Appeal, September 1, 2026, unpublished; New Albertsons v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, December 10, 2008; Lamb v. Outback Steakhouse, federal court in Georgia, September 30, 2021; Duong v. Benihana, 3rd Circuit, April 15, 2022; Brookshire Brothers v. Aldridge, Texas Supreme Court, July 3, 2014; Victor Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, May 24, 2023, published; League of Women Voters v. Detzner, Florida Supreme Court, July 9, 2015; Wal-Mart Stores East v. Garcia Pineda, Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal, March 12, 2025; Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Illinois Supreme Court, 2012; Cook v. Tarbert Logging, Washington Court of Appeals, 2015; Reid v. Norix Group, Washington Court of Appeals, unpublished; Phillips v. Harmon, Georgia Supreme Court, June 29, 2015; Bass-Davis v. Davis, Nevada Supreme Court, May 11, 2006; Patton v. Wal-Mart Stores, federal court in Nevada, November 20, 2013; Stedeford v. Wal-Mart Stores, federal court in Nevada, June 24, 2016; Fidler v. AIKG, Georgia Court of Appeals, No. A26A1558, September 29, 2026; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37; Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, California Supreme Court, May 11, 1998; Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Florida Supreme Court, July 7, 2005
The personal injury settlements and verdicts database provides reported case results.
Cite this data
SetCalc. "How Long Do Stores Keep Security Footage After a Fall." Updated November 3, 2026. https://setcalc.com/guides/how-long-do-stores-keep-security-footage.
Are You An Attorney?
Use AI to estimate settlements for your clients with a SetCalc Professional account.
Learn More
Review your injury claim after requesting the video
Use the free AI calculator with attorney review for your injury claim. The slip and fall settlement guide covers injury values and what you must prove against the owner.
Start the free AI calculator