COVID-19 FAQs

Articles Posted in Premises Liability

Florida is an international hub for some of the world’s most well-known amusement parks. While various governmental entities issue guidance and regulations regarding amusement park safety, many rides pose inherent risks. Although most amusement park-goers sign release of liability waivers in the event of an accident or injury, these waivers are not iron-clad. In some instances, injury victims may still pursue claims against a negligent amusement park.

Recently, a 14-year-old boy fell to his death at Florida’s ICON Park. The teenager fell from a FreeFall drop tower ride, which transports riders up and then drops them about 400 feet at speeds exceeding 75 mph. According to authorities, the 14-year-old weighed more than 300 pounds and stood nearly 6-feet, 5-inches tall. The ride’s operations manual states that the maximum passenger weight is about 287 pounds. The manual further states that ride operators should use care when seating large guests. Operators should confirm that the passenger fits within the contours of the seat and brackets. In this case, the employee operating the ride at the time of the incident completed training at the end of February.

Moreover, safety officials visually inspected the ride in a “non-destructive test.” Reports indicate the ride met Florida’s qualifications. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is working with the sheriff’s office to investigate the incident and make changes to protect amusement park patrons.

In Florida, the Third District Court of Appeals recently issued a decision in a plaintiff’s appeal of a trial court’s finding in favor of an apartment complex. According to the record, the apartment complex owns a six-floor building. On the day of the incident, the then seventeen-year-old plaintiff trespassed and gained access to the apartment complex rooftop with the intention to commit suicide. The plaintiff did not complete suicide but endured severe injuries, including the amputation of his leg.

In Florida, premises liability law provides that generally, property owner or occupier has a duty to maintain a premise or property in a reasonably safe way. Additionally, a plaintiff may pursue a negligence per se claim if they establish that the defendant violated an ordinance or law to prevent the type of incident that occurred.

In this case, the plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the complex, alleging that the defendant owed a duty to prevent suicide on the rooftop. Under the restriction theory of suicide prevention, the theory posits that by eliminating or restricting access to methods by which people attempt suicide, the overall rate of suicide attempts decreases. However, the plaintiff’s complaint does not allege that the defendant breached a specific duty to prevent or guard against his suicide attempt. As such, the trial court concluded that private building owners do not owe a duty to undiscovered trespassers to prevent suicide.

Most Florida negligence lawsuits that proceed to a trial are ultimately decided by a jury. Juries are made up of randomly selected members of the public, who are not expected to have any specific knowledge of tort law. Courts use jury instructions, which are given to the jurors before deliberation, to explain the law to the jurors, and ensure that a verdict is supported by the law. Jury instructions are determined after each side proposes and argues to the court the exact wording for instructions that will allow the jury to reach a legitimate verdict. If an instruction is given to the jury that does not accurately explain the law surrounding the issue at hand, a verdict could be overruled on appeal. A Florida appellate court recently addressed an appeal filed by a defendant in a slip and fall case, which argued that the jury was improperly instructed before reaching the verdict.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case is a woman who was injured after she slipped on an oily substance while shopping at the defendant’s supermarket. Based on her injuries, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant in state court, alleging that the defendant had negligently maintained the premise of their business, and the plaintiff was injured as a result of that negligence. The plaintiff’s case went to trial, after which the jury was given instructions explaining the basis for a premises liability claim against a Florida business.

One instruction, proposed by the plaintiff, stated that the defendant should be liable for the plaintiff’s injuries if evidence demonstrated that the defendant negligently failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, or negligently failed to correct a dangerous condition about which the defendant either knew or should have known, by the use of reasonable care, or negligently failed to warn the plaintiff of the dangerous condition about which the defendant had, or should have had, knowledge greater than that of the plaintiff.

Recently, an appellate court issued a decision addressing whether a plaintiff’s claim falls under Florida’s negligence statute or the state’s medical malpractice statute. The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant, a healthcare group, for injuries he suffered while receiving treatment at the facility. According to the record, the hospital admitted the patient for diagnostic imaging. Following the procedure, the plaintiff tried to move from the exam table to a wheelchair. However, the plaintiff fell because the attendant failed to secure the wheelchair brakes properly. The plaintiff claimed that his claim was based on ordinary negligence, not medical malpractice.

However, the court dismissed the complaint at trial, finding that the claim sounded in medical malpractice, and the plaintiff failed to abide by the applicable statute of limitations.

In cases like this, the initial inquiry is based on determining whether the claim stems from ordinary negligence or medical malpractice. According to Florida courts, these types of “gray-area” cases hinge on the specific circumstances of the injury. However, the law limits a court’s inquiry to the allegations within the “four corners” of the plaintiff’s complaint at the preliminary stages. In this case, the court found that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to meet the elements of an ordinary negligence claim. As such, they reversed the trial court’s finding, ruling that the dismissal with prejudice was inappropriate.

After experiencing an injury because of another’s negligence, an accident victim may be able to collect damages for their losses. Under Florida’s negligence laws, the plaintiff must establish that the at-fault party was responsible for the incident and ensuing injuries. While this may seem straightforward, the law has many nuances that make recovery challenging for many Florida accident victims. Injury plaintiffs must meet the four primary prongs of a personal injury lawsuit to recover damages successfully. In addition, they must be able to overcome any defenses the at-fault party poses.

Broadly speaking, a defendant may be liable for negligence if they failed to use reasonable care. Reasonable care is that which a similarly situated person would use under the same circumstances. Negligence may include the failure to do something that a reasonable person would do or doing something that a reasonable person would not do. The four elements of a Florida negligence lawsuit include establishing that the defendant owed the victim a duty, they breached that duty, that breach was the cause of the plaintiff’s harm, and the plaintiff suffered compensable losses. Defendants can refute any part of a plaintiff’s claim, and if they are successful, the claim will fail. As such, it is vital that claimants contact an attorney to ensure that all elements of their claim are met.

The most critical inquiry in these cases is whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. In Florida, the duty of care is the other party’s legal responsibility to the injury victim. A person’s duty of care depends on many factors, including their age and relationship status to the victim. For instance, there are different duties of care for private citizens and their actions towards one another instead of the professional duty of care a medical provider has towards their patient. While a private citizen maintains a duty to drive safely and obey traffic rules, a nurse or doctor has a stricter duty of care to those they are treating than the average person. Similarly, the duty changes when the at-fault party is a business owner.

Florida law requires businesses to keep their premises safe for customers. This includes keeping floors dry so that customers do not suffer slip-and-fall accidents. Those who are injured after slipping on a wet floor must show that a business had actual or constructive knowledge of the floor’s dangerous condition and should have done something to fix it.

Sometimes, plaintiffs can offer direct evidence to show that a business knew about a wet floor. For example, a waiter could testify that he saw a spilled drink on a restaurant floor. In other cases, accident victims must rely on circumstantial evidence to prove constructive knowledge. Plaintiffs demonstrate constructive knowledge by showing that a dangerous condition like a wet floor existed long enough that a business should have known about it, or that the condition happened with regularity at the business.

This month, a Florida appellate court issued an opinion in a slip-and-fall case that relied on circumstantial evidence to prove constructive knowledge of a wet floor. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove constructive knowledge because her case relied on a series of “stacked” inferences.

The Second District Court of Appeals recently issued a decision regarding a settlement agreement in a Florida premises liability case. The plaintiff appealed a final order enforcing a settlement agreement in favor of the defendants–a Health Center. Following a lawsuit against the Health Center, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which allowed the Health Center to satisfy the final judgment if they “timely made” thirteen monthly payments. The agreement included a specific payment schedule and stated that if a monthly payment is late, the defendant had ten days to cure it from the date the plaintiff made written notice.

The first two monthly payments were three days and two days late; in both situations, the Health Center promised that the payments were forthcoming. As such, the plaintiff refrained from sending the ten-day cure notice. After the Health Center failed to make the payment, the plaintiff moved for a default judgment; however, the parties agreed to reinstate the settlement. This pattern continued for the next several months; however, the defendants did not argue the validity or effectiveness of the settlement agreement. The defendant sent the final payment with a notice stating that they were expecting a release from judgment. The plaintiff rejected the final payment, arguing that the defendants were in breach of the agreement based on the late payments. The defendant moved to enforce the agreement.

In Florida, courts reviewing settlement agreements look to the ordinary meaning of the contract’s language. In this case, the agreement stated that the plaintiff would only accept the agreed-upon sum if the defendant made timely payments. Further, the agreement stated that the plaintiff could declare a default judgment if the payment were not received during the ten-day cure period. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s acceptance of late payments rewrote the contract. The court explained that although subsequent conduct can modify terms in a contract, nothing in this situation indicated an intent to change the terms. Even though the plaintiff did not send a ten-day cure notice after the first two late payments, they did so at the third late payment. When the defendant did not respond, the plaintiff moved to declare a default judgment. Moreover, every receipt for subsequent payment stated that the payment was being accepted in “partial satisfaction of the Amended Final Judgment.” As such, the original settlement agreement terms remained effective.

A federal appellate court recently issued an opinion in a Florida premises liability case, requiring the court to interpret a Florida statute. According to the record, the federal government operates an Air Force base, including a public beach with a public shower. A civil employee at the base and his wife filed a lawsuit for injuries the man suffered while using the shower. He alleged that the government allowed an algae film to grow on the shower surface and failed to warn the public of the danger. In response to the lawsuit, the government argued that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and the state’s recreational-use statute, Fla. Stat § 375.251, provided immunity from the lawsuit. The plaintiffs argued that he was a business-visitor invitee because he worked at the Air Force base, and the statute did not apply. The lower court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs’ appealed.

The FTCA allows the government to be sued if a private person would be liable to the claimant under the law. Further, the state’s recreational use statute protects public outdoor recreation areas against ordinary premises liability. Under the statute, these qualifying owners do not owe a duty of care to keep their area safe for entry or use or to warn persons entering the area. In this case, the government argued that the statute bars the claim because the government is an “owner,” which provides the public access to the beach, an outdoor recreational area. Further, they argued that the plaintiffs were “persons” within the meaning of the state.

In an attempt to overcome the bar, the plaintiffs cited the statute’s subsection, precisely the term “others.” The plaintiffs suggested that the term referred to those invited onto the land for reasons other than business. They assert that there is a distinction between public invitees and business-visitor invitees. In reviewing the plain meaning of the term “others,” the court found that the term clearly and unambiguously refers to “persons.” The court found that even if the plaintiffs were business visitors invitees, which is unclear, the statute does not exempt that category of visitors. The court ultimately affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the government did not waive its sovereign immunity.

An appellate court recently issued an opinion in a Florida premises liability lawsuit against a trampoline park. The case arose when a mother brought a lawsuit against an amusement park company (Park) on behalf of her son, who suffered injuries at the trampoline park. A friend of the family took the woman’s son to a trampoline park for a birthday party. While the boy was at the Park, he suffered serious injuries after falling off of a zipline. The woman filed a negligence lawsuit against the Park, and the Park moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the Park’s motion to compel arbitration, and the appeal ensued.

The Park requires ticket holders to sign a release which includes an assumption of risk, waiver of liability, and indemnification agreement. At issue is whether the arbitration clause in this agreement was valid and whether the parties agreed to the clause. The Park contends that because the family friend had “legal physical custody” of the minor, she could sign the arbitration agreement on his behalf. It further argued that any issues surrounding the authority of the woman to sign the agreement were an issue for arbitration, not a trial court.

Under Florida law, arbitration provisions fall under contract law and require contract interpretation. Disputes involving whether a case should proceed to arbitration require a court to look at three elements. These elements include (1) whether a valid written arbitration agreement exists, (2) whether an arbitrable issue is present, and (3) whether the parties waived the right to arbitrate.

Although people are generally familiar with the stages of a criminal lawsuit, there tends to be an extraordinary amount of misinformation and confusion regarding Florida civil lawsuits. There are many critical stages of a civil lawsuit that can significantly impact a plaintiff’s avenue for recovery after an accident. Individuals should contact an attorney at the onset of their lawsuit to ensure that they maintain the ability to recover for their damages.

Pleadings are the first stage of a Florida personal injury lawsuit. Although the term is often conflated with “all documents” in a case, the term is much narrower in scope. Pleadings are only documents and filings that set forth allegations, causes of actions, and the defending entity’s responses and defenses. This stage includes the complaint, answers, responses, counter and cross-claims, and relevant amendments.

Florida personal injury lawsuits commence when a party files a complaint or petition. The victim or complaining party should include factual assertions and the associated legal claims. In some situations, the pleadings must conform to special rules, such as claims arising out of medical malpractice or governmental entities. Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow plaintiffs to proceed under inconsistent theories; however, the rule extends to defenses as well. Courts may rule in favor of a defendant and grant summary judgment if the complaint is insufficient. For example, a Florida appeals court recently dismissed at plaintiff’s claims based on a pleading deficit. In that case, the plaintiff asserted a negligence claim against his neighbor for a fire that a third-party contractor started. The plaintiff failed to address the third party in the complaint. The court found that both parties agreed that the defendant was not negligent and, therefore, only a vicarious liability claim would be viable against the defendant. However, the court dismissed the complaint because the plaintiff failed to allege vicarious liability in their pleading.

Contact Information