Articles Posted in Premises Liability

On July 1, 2016, there was a shooting at a nightclub in Palmetto, Florida. Three patrons of the nightclub were shot, and others were trampled in the ensuing chaos. Now, several of those injured in the incident have sued the nightclub for damages. Even though the nightclub owners were not the ones who did the shooting, the plaintiffs in this case allege that the owners were negligent in several important ways. A skilled South Florida personal injury attorney can help you to determine whether you may be able to recover damages for any injuries that you have suffered due to the fault of another.

Duty Owed By Nightclub Owner

When a business opens its doors to the public, whether a nightclub, grocery store, or offices, they owe a duty to the patrons of the establishment. Generally, the owners and managers owe a duty to keep things reasonably safe for patrons. However, what is considered reasonable in any given circumstance is dependent upon a number of different factors.

In order for a court to hear a case, they must have jurisdiction over that case. Sometimes there may be multiple courts that could potentially hear a given case. One situation that comes up is that a plaintiff will bring a case in a court that is inconvenient for the defendant. When that happens a defendant may ask for the case to be moved to a more convenient court by requesting a change of venue. The court will look at the facts and circumstances of the case as well as a number of other factors to determine whether they will grant the venue change. The case here illustrates this point and gives an example of a situation where the change of venue was granted.


The instant case comes out of a slip and fall in a Florida hotel. The plaintiff was at the hotel and fell injuring her right leg badly enough to require surgery. She was a resident of New Jersey and the defendant hotel corporation is incorporated in South Carolina and has a principle place of business in Florida. There is a complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, meaning that all the parties are from different states. As the claim is also asking for more than $75,000 the parties meet the requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction meaning that the case can be heard in federal court. That is not the end of the inquiry though. There are federal courts all over the country. Which one should the case be heard in?

The specific state where the case should be located is called the “venue.” The plaintiff in this case originally filed the suit in the federal court in New Jersey. The defendant then asked for it to be moved to Florida. While both are permissible places for the case to be heard, the court will look at specific factors to determine whether they should grant the defendant’s petition. Continue Reading

Stores are required to use reasonable care in maintaining their premises in a reasonably safe condition.  If a customer is injured while shopping in a store, the store is not instantaneously liable for the injuries suffered.  An injured customer must show the store either created the dangerous condition, or had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition.  Florida premises liability can be a complicated area of law where it may be a boon to retain an attorney to guide you through the process of filing suit. The Third District Court of Appeal recently weighed in on whether this question should be considered by a jury.  The customer was shopping at a chain hardware store when a large metal object fell off an upper aisle shelf and struck him.  The customer was speaking to a store employee when the incident occurred.  He relayed that he did not see the object before it fell or after it fell, but noticed it falling from his peripheral vision.  The employee he was speaking to showed him a trailer hitch, explaining that that was what hit his knee. 

The store later asserted that heavy objects like hitches were only stored on lower shelves.  The injured testified he witnessed hitches that were stored on the top shelf eight or nine feet above the ground.  The injured customer eventually filed suit against the store for negligence and negligent mode of operation.  The store chain moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence the store had any knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition.  The store stated nothing was offered by the injured to show where the hitch was located at the time of the accident, that it was the store that created this condition, and that it was physically impossible for the accident to have occurred as described by the injured.  While the court disagreed with the characterization that the incident was “impossible”, it found there was no genuine issue of material fact.  The injured customer appealed.

The court noted that the evidence is to be viewed in a light most favorable to the appellant, and the appellant had previously offered that he saw the object fall from above, there were other employees stocking shelves at the time he was in the aisle, that a store employee identified the object from the hitch, and that he saw the hitch located on an upper shelf several feet above the ground.  The appellate court found there was a genuine question for a jury to decide as to whether the store had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition.

Continue Reading

When an injury occurs on the premises of a business, it can be difficult to determine who is liable for the accident. When there are multiple entities involved, including insurers, indemnity often comes up between the parties.  Insurance companies often indemnify their insureds, meaning that they handle the suit on behalf of the insured.  Sometimes two companies can agree between themselves that one will indemnify the other in certain situations.  The First District Court of Appeal addressed a question of indemnity in a Florida premises liability case, No. 1D16-5675.

A woman was trapped and injured in an office building elevator.  The property owner had previously entered into an elevator service contract, hiring a company to be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the elevators in the office building.  This included responding to calls from people trapped in an elevator.    After the injured person filed suit against the owners of the office building for negligence, the property owner sought indemnification from the elevator maintenance company, per the agreement.  After the contractor refused to indemnify, the property owner filed a cross complaint against the contractor for not honoring the contract, asserting the property owners were not at fault. 

At trial, the jury found the property owners and the maintenance contractors to be 50 percent at fault in their response to the elevator malfunction.  The office building owners moved for a directed verdict, which was granted, absolving them of liability as the legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, but still holding them liable for providing safe operation and proper maintenance.  The property owner and the elevator company each reached their own settlement agreement with the plaintiffs during the second phase of the bifurcated trial.  The agreement between the property owner and the injured person was disclosed to the jury, but the agreement between the elevator maintenance company and the injured person was not.  The jury returned a verdict of $13 million, which was in excess of the settlement amount.

Continue Reading

Businesses are expected to exercise reasonable care over their premises, providing inspection, maintenance, repairs, or warnings of any foreign object or substance. If the business fails to provide this to its customers, and this failure results in injuries, the property owner or manager can be held liable for the injuries and expenses incurred as a result. A Fourth District Court of Appeal case reviews the type of proof needed in a premises liability action for a successful result for the injured person in Decision No. 4D16-3413.

The plaintiff slipped on liquid laundry detergent while in a “big box” store. His injury resulted in incurred medical expenses. The injured person described the person in front of him as carrying a “leaking” laundry detergent bottle, which spilled the substance on which he slipped. The injured person filed suit against the store, alleging negligence, and won $250,000 in damages. The trial court judge denied all post-trial motions made by the store, which appealed the verdict in favor of the injured person.

The store argued on appeal that the court should have granted its motion for a directed verdict. The store claimed the injured person failed to sufficiently plead a prima facie case for negligence by using the theory of negligent mode of operation. The injured person countered that the store’s operation was negligent because of its policy of using a high-gloss finish on its floors, resulting in a constant wet-look finish. This persistent wet look makes it increasingly difficult for patrons to be able to see translucent liquids, due to the reflection off the floor caused by the bright lights.

Continue Reading

A successful personal injury trial for a plaintiff primarily hinges on whether or not the fact finder believes it is more likely than not the defendant(s) caused the resulting injury due to negligent behavior that falls short of a legal duty. While a jury is given great discretion in the type of facts they find to be true and supportive of a claim or defense, the trial court can make a determination at the end of each party’s presentation of evidence on whether or not the facts presented meet the set legal standard. If the facts fall short of the legal requirements for a successful claim, the court can issue a directed verdict. If this occurs at the end of the trial, it can override a jury verdict.

A motion for a directed verdict in a Florida slip-and-fall lawsuit was recently considered in a Florida Third District Court of Appeal decision. The grocery store argued on appeal it was entitled to a directed verdict because the injured party’s evidence fell short of showing the store had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition or that one of its employees caused the dangerous condition to occur. The Court of Appeal agreed, reversing the million-plus jury verdict and remanding the case for a new trial.

The injured person fell during a shopping excursion with her husband. The 70-year-old lady realized she forgot some items while in line to check out. Her husband went to find these products but also decided to buy some other things and order a sandwich. During this period, his wife went to find him after he took so long to return, falling and slipping on some water. She did not notice this water prior to the fall. When the husband returned to the checkout area, he found his wife sitting in a chair crying. The husband testified he remembered seeing a man with a “mop in his hand,” but he did not specifically recount what he was doing. The wife also testified she saw an employee with a mop in his hand, but she failed to provide any details beyond this description.

Continue Reading

In a slip and fall case, the location of the accident often determines which venue is appropriate for a civil action. Sometimes if one files suit against a business, the injured person may choose to file suit in the state where the corporation’s headquarters are located. In an appellate decision out of the Third District Court of Appeal, the court reviewed whether or not the state court system was an appropriate venue for a slip and fall that occurred while a woman was about to embark on a cruise.

The injured passenger alleged the corporation had a duty to supervise, control, and direct the crowd using the escalator as they collectively boarded the ship. She claimed they failed to provide safe ingress and egress to the cruise ship by using a faulty entranceway. The cruise ship company moved to dismiss, arguing the venue was improper based on the forum selection clause.  When the passenger purchased her ticket, she agreed to all of the terms and conditions within it, including the selection of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida if an incident leads to litigation. The passenger asserted her case was properly filed in state court because the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court agreed with the injured passenger and denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, as well as the motion to reconsider. The cruise ship company appealed.

The state court of appeal noted the federal court’s general authority to hear maritime cases stems from the U.S. Constitution. They also looked at federal and state case law, which has long established forum selection clauses on cruise ship tickets are enforceable. The court concluded that federal court is the preferred venue, and it is only in the absence of admiralty jurisdiction when the proper venue is in the state court.

Continue Reading

A Florida appellate court recently assessed an appeal stemming from an accident and negligent care that caused significant, fatal injuries. In a recent case, the personal representative of the injured person’s estate filed suit against several defendants, alleging the decedent was first injured by a malfunctioning sliding door at a drugstore, which led to her receiving inadequate care at a senior home, ultimately resulting in her death. The decedent suffered significant injuries from the fall at the drug store’s premises that were then aggravated by a second fall at the senior center. The representative initially filed two separate actions against the drugstore and the senior center but eventually moved to consolidate the two actions under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.270(a).

In his motion, the representative alleged the wrongful death claim was based on successive injury-producing incidents, and both the drug store and the center contributed to the woman’s death. The representative argued there was a substantial risk of inconsistent verdicts because one defendant could place the blame on the other defendant in each case. The representative asserted this could collectively minimize the defendants’ liability and the jury’s award of damages.

The Second District Court of Appeal looked at previous state decisions to determine whether the trial court erred when it denied the motion to consolidate. The Florida Supreme Court previously determined two separate actions involving two automobile accidents should have been consolidated because the damages could not be readily divided among the defendants in each action. (See Lawrence v. Hethcox, 283 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1973).) The court ruled that separate actions would have increased the injured person’s challenges in proving how much each defendant was responsible. The court felt a denial of consolidation would obstruct rather than promote justice. Other district court verdicts reflect this reasoning in U-Haul Co. of Northern Florida, Inc. v. White and Hickey v. Pompano K of C Inc. Hickey had similar facts to the case at hand, in which a plaintiff suffered two separate slip-and-falls three weeks apart. The plaintiff in Hickey injured her knee, which was alleged to have contributed to the second fall that then exacerbated the first injury. The Fourth District pointed out that the defendant in each action could place the blame on the other defendant, which would result in a low verdict in one or both trials. Low verdicts are not grounds for a new trial, and the plaintiff would be blocked from an adequate remedy by appeal.

Continue Reading

The Supreme Court recently settled a certified conflict between the Fifth and Second District Courts of Appeal, asking whether a party is required to disclose that their attorney referred them to a particular physician for treatment. The legal analysis hinged on whether or not the attorney-client privilege shielded a party from disclosures otherwise required by the rules of discovery. In a recent case (No. SC15-1086), the Supreme Court determined that in this scenario, there is a confidential communication between the attorney and the client, subject to the constitutional privilege.

The Fifth District’s decision was quashed, and the Second District’s was affirmed. In the Fifth District case, the plaintiff slipped and fell in a parking lot. After seeking treatment in an emergency room, she was referred to a specialist for the pain in her right knee. Due to a lack of money, she did not go, but she sought out representation. After retaining legal counsel, she was seen and treated by different physicians from an orthopedic institute and two surgical centers. The injured woman filed suit against the business that owned the parking lot, seeking damages for the cost of her treatment.

During the discovery phase of the litigation, the defendant business repeatedly tried to ask the injured woman about the relationship between her attorneys and the treating physicians seen after she hired counsel. The same questions were asked during the deposition, but the injured woman’s counsel objected, claiming the attorney-client privilege. Interrogatories were then sent by the business to the treating physicians, requesting information to help establish the existence of a referral relationship. The injured woman responded by asserting the requests were overly broad, vague, and unduly burdensome in violation of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

Continue Reading

When an injured party seeks justice in a Florida personal injury lawsuit, he or she hopes for impartial fact-finders. To ensure a fair trial for all parties, the civil court system uses a formal process called Voir Dire in the selection of jurors. Several members of the community are called to potentially serve on a jury.  From this pool of citizens, the attorneys for the parties narrow the candidates by asking written and oral questions.  The jurors are required to answer truthfully so that any disqualifications and biases can be figured out.

In a recent case (Case No. 5D16-1503), the defendant hotel asked to interview a juror and for a new trial following a verdict in favor of a woman injured in a slip and fall accident on its property. The trial court denied both motions, and the hotel appealed. Initially, the case was filed after the injured plaintiff fractured her kneecap after slipping in a puddle of water in the hotel lobby. The kneecap injury required several screws to be surgically placed in her knee. The lawsuit went to a jury trial, in which the jury found the injured woman and the hotel to each be partially negligent. Despite her partial negligence, an award of nearly $400,000 was granted to the injured woman.

During the Voir Dire phase of the jury trial, a juror questionnaire was filled out by each potential juror. Included were two questions that asked if the juror or a member of their immediate family had been a party to a lawsuit and if the juror or a member of their family had been accused, a complainant, or a witness in a criminal case. The juror at issue in this appeal had answered No to both questions, despite several criminal charges and convictions, a bankruptcy, and a divorce. The juror had also lied about her length of residence in Florida. The defendant hotel argued that if the juror had answered those questions truthfully, she would not have been on the deciding panel. To show that the juror’s deceit potentially affected the outcome, the hotel pointed to the major theme in its defense that the injured plaintiff was dishonest about her cellphone use at the time of the slip and fall accident.

Continue Reading

10 Best 2015
The American Trial Lawyers Association
Florida Justice Association
The National Trial Lawyers
Super Lawyers