Premises Liability

Florida Premises Liability Claims Against Landlords

Published on: April 17, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In most cases, landowners owe a duty of care to those whom they invite onto their land. As a general rule, the level of care owed to a visitor depends on the relationship between the parties. For example, a customer shopping at a business is owed a higher duty of care than a trespasser who enters the owner’s land without permission.The landlord-tenant relationship presents an interesting intersection of premises liability law and contract law. Certainly, the landlord retains legal ownership of the property and is responsible for transferring the property to the tenant in a reasonably safe condition; however, pursuant to the lease between the parties, the tenant is in exclusive possession of the property. Thus, courts have had to devise a way to determine when liability is appropriate in situations in which an injury occurs at a property owned by the landlord.

In Florida, a landlord can be held liable for injuries occurring on the property in a limited number of situations. The first is if the property was not transferred to the tenant in a safe condition. This includes making sure that the building is up to all building, housing, and health codes. The second potential basis for landlord liability is when the landlord fails to repair a known defect. In order for a tenant to succeed under this theory of liability, the tenant must have provided the landlord notice that the dangerous condition needed repair. Finally, a landlord may be liable to non-tenants in certain circumstances if a tenant’s dog attacks a visitor.

Florida Woman Files Claim Against Bank After Falling in Hole in Construction Area

Published on: March 13, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A Florida appellate court recently considered whether a bank could be held liable after a woman fell in a hole in a construction zone on the bank’s property. The woman had driven to the bank to make a deposit. When she arrived, she saw the bank was closed and decided to use the bank’s outdoor ATM. She parked her car and saw that the area was under construction with a barricade in front of the ATM. The woman says there was a sign with an arrow directing people to walk around the barricade. She followed the directions, but as she was walking around the barricade, she stepped in a hole, causing her to fall and break her foot and her leg. She said did not see the hole, but admitted that there was nothing preventing her from looking down and seeing the it.The woman filed a claim against the bank and its general contractor, alleging a breach of duty to warn and a breach of duty to maintain a safe location. The defendants claimed they were entitled to summary judgment under the obvious danger doctrine. The woman argued they were not entitled to summary judgment because the condition was not open and obvious.

Doctor Awarded $7 Million in Premises Liability Lawsuit Against Hospital

Published on: February 8, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a Georgia jury awarded a doctor $7 million in compensation after determining that the hospital where he was injured bore 70% of the responsibility for an accident resulting in the doctor’s career-ending injuries. According to a news article covering the recent case, the jury initially awarded the doctor $10 million, but that amount was reduced because the jury found the doctor to be 30% at fault.

The Facts of the Case

The doctor had just finished performing a surgery at the defendant hospital when he sat down on a rolling stool to complete some post-operation paperwork. However, as he sat on the stool, it shot out from under him. The doctor fell, hitting his head on the floor. Initially, the doctor told bystanders that he was fine and even left the room to speak with a patient’s family. However, within hours of his fall, he was experiencing double vision and shortly afterward started suffering from seizures.

The doctor filed a lawsuit against the hospital, alleging that the specific type of stool used in the operating room was unsafe. The doctor presented evidence that the casters, which are the wheels on the bottom of the stool, were designed for carpeted surfaces and were unsafe on the hard vinyl flooring in the operating room. The doctor also explained that he had to end his successful practice after the accident, since he was afraid for his patients given his newly developed seizure disorder.

Appellate Court Reverses Ruling in Favor of Defendant in Slip-and-Fall Case

Published on: January 9, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Michigan Supreme Court recently published an opinion reversing an appellate court decision that had overturned a trial court’s granting of summary judgment to the defendant in a slip-and-fall lawsuit filed after the plaintiff fell outside the defendant’s restaurant on a snowy night. The high court determined that the trial court was initially correct to determine that to be awarded summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant did not need to affirmatively prove they did not have notice of the dangerous condition causing the plaintiff’s fall. Based on the most recent decision, the plaintiff will not be compensated for her injuries, regardless of whether the defendant actually knew of the hazard that caused her injuries.

The Plaintiff Slips on a Staircase Outside the Defendant’s Bar

The plaintiff in the case of Lowery v. Woody’s Diner was a woman who was having drinks with friends at the defendant’s bar on a snowy night when she fell in front of the restaurant. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff fell and broke two bones while she was standing outside the restaurant having a cigarette with a friend.

After she was injured, the plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that the defendant failed to maintain safe premises by allowing hazardous conditions to develop, specifically a slippery staircase.

Court Affirms Judgment Against Plaintiff for Failing to Properly Join and Name All Defendants Before Statute of Limitations Expired

Published on: January 2, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently published an opinion affirming a judge’s decision to grant summary judgment to a defendant condominium association in a slip-and-fall lawsuit that was filed by a woman who was injured outside the condominium. The condo consisted of two connected units owned jointly by two couples and an unincorporated association they had formed. According to the appellate opinion, the plaintiff intended to sue both the individual owners and the association, but she failed to properly name the association in her original complaint. The plaintiff eventually amended the complaint with all of the correct parties over one year after the statute of limitations for her claim had expired.

The Plaintiff Claims Confusion with True Identity of the Defendant Prevented Her Timely Filing

In seeking leave to file the amended complaint, the plaintiff explained that she intended to sue the association as well as the owners, but her investigation was unable to determine the actual organization holding ownership of the complex when the original complaint was filed. The plaintiff used a fictitious name (XYZ Condo Association) until she could file an amended complaint with the actual party name included. Since she sought to amend the complaint over three years from the date of her injury, she requested that the statute of limitations be extended to allow the amended complaint to proceed as if it were filed when the initial complaint against XYZ Condo Association was filed.

Rejection of Plaintiff’s Slip-and-Fall Case Affirmed by Appellate Court on Review

Published on: December 28, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently published an opinion affirming a lower federal district court’s judgment in favor of the defendant in a negligence lawsuit filed by a plaintiff after she was injured in a fall. The plaintiff was a woman who was seriously injured after she slipped on rocks in a parking lot that was adjacent to and operated by the defendant, a national hardware store chain. Both the district court and the Seventh Circuit ruled that the woman presented insufficient evidence to support her negligence claim and that she was not entitled to plead her case for damages to a jury or judge at a trial. As a result of the appellate court ruling, the woman will not be compensated for her claim or the damages she suffered as a result of the fall.

The Plaintiff Is Injured After Slipping on Rocks Used and Sold by the Defendant

According to the appellate court’s discussion of the plaintiff’s initial complaint, the injuries resulting in the case of Piotrowski v. Menard, Inc. were caused when the plaintiff slipped on two or more rocks that were in the parking lot of the defendant’s store near the exit. The plaintiff claimed that the rocks on which she tripped were similar or identical to rocks that the defendant used in a decorative planter near the site of her fall. The rocks were also sold by the defendant inside the store as decorative river rock.

After she fell in the parking lot, she was transported by ambulance to a local hospital and treated for several broken bones and torn ligaments. Within one year of the fall, the plaintiff had been hospitalized four additional times and undergone three surgeries as a result of the injuries she suffered in the fall.

State Supreme Court Rules Against Condominium Association in Slip-and-Fall Accident Case

Published on: December 26, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Illinois Supreme Court recently released an opinion affirming a lower appellate court’s decision not to grant immunity to a condominium association after the plaintiff was injured after slipping and falling on an ice patch and filed a premises liability lawsuit. The plaintiff’s case alleged that the defendant property management company negligently maintained the condominium complex where the plaintiff resided, resulting in her fall.During the early case proceedings, the trial court applied a state statute concerning liability for improper snow and ice removal to find the defendant immune from liability for the plaintiff’s claim, granting summary judgment to the defendant. On appeal, the higher courts ruled that the plaintiff’s claim did not trigger the immunity statute and reversed the trial court. As a result of the recent rulings, the plaintiff’s case will return to the trial court and proceed toward a trial or settlement.

The Plaintiff Suffers an Injury After Slipping on the Sidewalk Outside Her Home

The plaintiff in the case of Murphy v. Lieberman Management Services is a Illinois woman who resided in a condominium complex that was managed by the defendant. About 10 days after a severe winter storm covered the area in over a foot of snow, the woman fell on a patch of ice that had accumulated in the parking lot near her apartment. The woman claimed that her fall was a result of the design of the parking lot and clogged gutters that were supposed to drain rainwater and snowmelt from areas where residents and visitors would be walking. Alleging that the property management company was responsible for ensuring the residents’ safety but failed to adequately design drainage and snowmelt management systems, the woman sued the defendant in state court for negligence and sought compensation for her injuries and loss.

Dismissal of Rollerblading Injury Case Affirmed by Appellate Court

Published on: December 1, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of North Dakota recently published an opinion affirming a trial court’s ruling dismissing a personal injury and premises liability claim filed by a plaintiff who was injured when she fell while rollerblading in a city park. The district court had ruled that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations for negligence lawsuits against government actors in North Dakota.Initially, the plaintiffs served the defendant with the lawsuit within the statute of limitations, but the service did not meet the procedural requirements set out by state law and was found to be invalid by the courts. The plaintiff’s other arguments on appeal were also rejected by the state supreme court, and they will be unable to recover compensation for the injuries suffered in the fall.

The Plaintiff Suffers a Fall While Rollerblading in the Park

The plaintiffs in the case of Frith v. City of Fargo were a husband and wife who were exercising in a park operated by the defendant on a day in the summer of 2012. The wife was rollerblading on a multi-use pathway when she tripped and lost control after running into a raised bit of soft patching material that had been used to fill a crack in the pathway. According to the facts in the appellate opinion, the woman claimed that she could not see the hazard, and no warning was posted. Nearly three years after the accident, the plaintiffs attempted to serve the defendant with a personal injury and premises liability lawsuit that alleged the defendant was in control of the park’s maintenance and allowed a dangerous hazard to be created on the pathway without cordoning off the area or otherwise giving an appropriate warning.

State Supreme Court Rejects Governmental Immunity Previously Granted to School Administrators in Auto-Pedestrian Collision Lawsuit

Published on: November 23, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut recently published an opinion reversing a lower court’s ruling to grant the defendants in a personal injury lawsuit immunity from the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff had been struck by a car while crossing the street onto the grounds of a public school, and he filed a negligence lawsuit against the driver of the vehicle that hit him, as well as against several school employees, the town, and members of the school board. The plaintiff’s claim alleged that the defendants breached their duty to the plaintiff to provide a safe school environment by failing to properly monitor and control the vehicular and foot traffic of students coming to and from the school.

The Plaintiff Is Struck by a Car as He Crossed the Street

In September 2007, the plaintiff in the case of Strycharz v. Cady was a freshman at the Bacon Academy, a public high school in Colchester, Connecticut. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff left the school grounds to smoke a cigarette after he was dropped off by the school bus but before classes began.

As the plaintiff attempted to cross the street at a crosswalk and visit a popular spot for students to smoke, he was struck and injured by a driver who failed to yield at the crosswalk. As a result of his injuries, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against several parties, including many school and town officials who allegedly knew of the dangers to students presented by traffic before and after school but failed to address the issue.

Court Determines Negligence Lawsuit Against Ambulance Company Was Time-Barred

Published on: November 7, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The California Court of Appeals recently released an opinion affirming a lower court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed against an ambulance company and hospital by a man who was injured while under the care of the defendants. The appellate court agreed with the district court’s finding that the claim was subject to the one-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims and was time-barred by the statute of limitations.

The Plaintiff’s Injuries Resulted in a Personal Injury Lawsuit

The plaintiff in Nava v. Saddleback was dropped from a gurney while being transported into the hospital from an ambulance and suffered from broken bones and severe pain as a result of his fall. He contacted an attorney and filed a personal injury and negligence lawsuit against the defendants 23 months after the fall occurred. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim was for medical malpractice and needed to be filed less than one year after the plaintiff was injured under the state’s statute of limitations for medical malpractice cases. The district court agreed with the defendants and entered judgment in their favor, and the plaintiff appealed.

The Court of Appeals Defines the Claim as One of Medical Malpractice

On appeal, the high court accepted the ruling of the district court, noting that any personal injury claim “related to” medical care that alleges the professional negligence of a health care provider is subject to the shorter, one-year statute of limitations. Since the plaintiff was receiving professional medical care from the defendants when his injuries occurred, the court ruled that his case was time-barred because the one-year statute of limitations applied. As a result of the recent appellate ruling, the plaintiff will not receive compensation for his injuries.