Premises Liability

Florida Court Sides with Man Who Was Injured in Shower Slip and Fall Accident

Published on: June 8, 2020 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

In a recent ruling, a Florida court upheld a verdict in favor of a man who was injured when he slipped and fell in his shower. The plaintiff’s claim was based on the landlord’s failure to properly fix the shower drain. Evidently, the defendant landlord had been notified about the issue on multiple occasions, but maintenance workers were unable to fix the problem. One day, the plaintiff slipped in the shower and landed on a ceramic soap tray. His injury required 30 stitches, and continuous therapy. The man later sued his landlord claiming that his injury was the result of the landlord’s negligence.

Florida law states that residential landlords have a general duty to repair dangerous, defective conditions when the landlord becomes aware of their existence. If the landlord fails to correct a known hazard, they may be held liable for injuries that occur as a result of the dangerous or defective condition. In this appeal, the defendant landlord asked the court to reverse the trial court’s decision in favor of the plaintiff. However, the court refused to disturb the trial court’s decision because it found enough evidence to support the verdict.

The key issue here was proximate cause. Proximate cause is the legal concept used to determine whether a harm caused to the plaintiff was the reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions. In order to find that a defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of an injury, the judge or jury must conclude that the injury was a natural and ordinary consequence of the defendant’s negligence. Therefore, a plaintiff must present facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that their injury was the foreseeable result of the defendant’s wrongful actions in order to successfully recover on a negligence claim.

Florida Appeals Court Finds Evidence of Constructive Notice in Plasma Center Slip and Fall Case

Published on: May 15, 2020 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

In a recent case before a Florida appeals court, the court considered whether there was sufficient evidence the business had constructive notice of water on the floor in a Florida slip and fall case. In that case, the plaintiff fell when he was at a plasma donation center. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff went to donate plasma, and after he arrived, he completed paperwork and sat down in the waiting room. After about 45 minutes had passed, the plaintiff went to the men’s bathroom. He took a couple of steps inside and fell, suffering injuries that included a broken orbital bone.

The plaintiff filed a negligence claim against the center. He alleged that when he fell, he slipped and was pushed forward onto the floor. He testified that he saw about a cup of dirty water on the floor, a couple of muddy footprints, and a skid mark. He testified that some of the liquid got onto the side of his shirt. He said it appeared that somebody had slipped previously, and that there were at least two footprints that looked “like muddy footprints.” A medical supervisor at the facility wrote up an incident report that day, indicating that he checked the bathroom floor for liquid and did not find any. Still, it was not clear at what time he wrote the report, and the supervisor did not remember what he did when he entered the bathroom to investigate. According to the evidence, it was also possible that a janitor had already come and cleaned the bathroom.

Under Florida law, a business owner has a duty to invitees to take reasonable care to keep its premises reasonably safe, to warn of dangers it knew of or should have known of and which the invitee could not discover. Under section 768.0755 of Florida Statutes, a plaintiff must prove that a defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the foreign substance. Under that statute, a plaintiff must prove that the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have “taken action to remedy it.” The statute provides that constructive knowledge can be proven by showing that the condition existed for a length of time that the business should have known about the condition if it had exercised ordinary care, or the condition was foreseeable because it occurred regularly.

Understanding the Obvious Danger Doctrine in Florida Premises Liability Cases

Published on: May 13, 2020 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Florida landowners or occupiers have certain duties towards people who come on their property. The duties owed toward individuals depends on the relationship between the landowner and the entrant. The three classes of entrants recognized in Florida premises liability cases are invitees, licensees, and trespassers. Florida landowners and occupiers owe some degree of duty towards all three classes of entrants.

In the case of an “obvious danger,” Florida law recognizes that people can be assumed to perceive such dangers. If there is an obvious danger, a landowner or occupier may not be obligated to warn others of those dangers. Yet, a landowner is still required to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition. This means that even if a landowner is relieved of warning others of apparent dangers, the landowner could still be liable for failing to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition.

A recent case before a federal appeals court showed how a property owner could be liable for failing to warn of a hazard and also of failing to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition. In that case, the plaintiff tripped on the leg of a lounge chair when she was walking on a cruise ship. While on their way to a restaurant on the cruise ship, the plaintiff had to walk on a curved walkway between a row of lounge chairs and the ship’s railing. The plaintiff said that the space was so narrow that she walked behind her husband, which she said obstructed her view, and, that while she was walking, she tripped on the leg of a lounge chair, causing her to fall.

Court Addresses Foreseeable Zone of Risk in Florida Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Published on: May 8, 2020 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Recently, a Florida appellate court issued an opinion in a consolidated appeal arising from the tragic mass murders at the Pulse nightclub. The facts indicate that the shooter entered the nightclub shooting and injuring fifty-three patrons and killing forty-nine others. The survivors and decedents’ representatives filed a lawsuit against the company that hired the shooter to work as a “Custom Protection Officer.” The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant breached their duty to engage in an appropriate investigation of their prospective employees before hiring them, and this negligence created a foreseeable zone of risk to the general public.

In support of their claim, they provided evidence that the defendant knew that the man was dismissed from a corrections officer training class for making statements suggesting that he would bring a gun to class. Despite this knowledge, the defendant hired the man for a position that required him to obtain a Class G firearm license. The license requires a psychological evaluation, and the defendants submitted a fraudulent one on behalf of the man.

While the man was working for the company, the Sheriff’s Department demanded that the defendant terminate the man because he continually threatened his colleagues and claimed to be associated with various terrorist groups. About two weeks before the shooting, the man tried to purchase ammunition from a licensed gun dealer, but he was turned away. A week later, he brought his Class G license to a different retailer and purchased the guns that he used for the mass shooting. The plaintiffs maintain that the defendants owed them a legal duty because they were in the foreseeable zone of risk that the defendants created.

Court Addresses Hotel Lifeguard Requirement in Florida Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Published on: May 6, 2020 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Recently, an appellate court issued its opinion in an appeal stemming from the tragic death of a man in a Florida hotel swimming pool. The man’s wife filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the hotel alleging, among other issues, that the hotel was responsible for the death of her husband because they failed to hire professional lifeguards to supervise its swimming pool.

According to the court’s opinion, the man was a guest of the hotel when he entered the swimming pool, which was operated and maintained by the hotel. While the man was swimming, he became submerged and died from drowning. His wife alleged that that the hotel breached their duty to provide and maintain a reasonably safe swimming pool and failed to protect their guests from unreasonable risk of physical harm. During the trial, the court provided the jury with an instruction that Florida law had no legal duty to “post a professional lifeguard at its pool.” The woman appealed the jury instruction and the trial court’s ruling granting the defendant summary judgment.

Under Florida law, negligence occurs when a person or entity fails to exercise reasonable care by engaging in a behavior that a reasonably careful person would not do, or failing to do something that a reasonably prudent person would do under similar circumstances. Generally, trial courts maintain the discretion to determine whether a jury instruction is appropriate, and instructions should not be overturned on appeal, unless there is a showing of prejudicial error.

Liability in Florida Playground Accidents

Published on: January 16, 2020 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Playground accidents can occur on Florida school property during school hours or at city and county parks. Some accidents are the result of child’s play and may not result in serious injuries. However, other preventable accidents are the result of someone’s negligence. In many instances, a child’s injuries are the result of defective equipment or negligent supervision. Florida children who have suffered playground injuries because of another person or entity’s negligence should contact an attorney to discuss their rights and remedies.

Typical defendants in Florida playground accidents are playground equipment manufacturers or retailers, school employees, or the city or county responsible for maintaining the playground. These cases entail many challenges because plaintiffs must comply with strict filing notices and deadlines. Requirements vary depending on the nature of the accident, type of lawsuit, and defendant.

Playground accidents, specifically those that occur on school grounds, are not always related to defective equipment, but may involve instances of altercations between students. For example, in a recent opinion, a state appellate court addressed evidentiary burdens in a lawsuit involving a physical altercation on a school playground. In that case, the child suffered injuries when other students attacked her during recess. The family filed a lawsuit alleging that the child’s injuries were a result of the school’s negligence and carelessness because of the school’s failure to supervise children on the playground adequately.

Negligent Entrustment Claims in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: October 14, 2019 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Negligent entrustment is a cause of action recognized in Florida personal injury cases. Proving negligent entrustment generally means establishing that another person or entity negligently allowed someone to use a dangerous object. In Florida, state courts have recognized section 390 of the Second Restatement of Torts, which states that if a someone supplies an object to another person and knows or has reason to believe it is likely that the object will be used in a way that involves unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others, that person is subject to liability for the resulting harm.

For example, a Florida court has found parents liable for negligent entrustment after they allowed their thirteen-year-old son to drive an ATV, after the ATV was involved an accident. That court decided that the parents knew or should have known that their son could not be entrusted with an ATV and that he was likely to violate the rules they had given him. In contrast, a Florida court found that a man could not be held liable for negligent entrustment after he put his drunk brother’s car keys in a place where he could easily have found them.

One state Supreme Court recently issued a decision in a negligent entrustment case. In that case, the plaintiff was knocked over and hospitalized at a grocery store by another customer driving a motorized cart. The plaintiff had about $11,500 in medical bills, and filed a negligent entrustment claim against the grocery store, claiming that the store should not have allowed the customer to use the motorized cart. After a jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $121,000 in compensatory damages and $1,198,000 in punitive damages, the state’s supreme court reversed.

Florida Workplace Slip and Fall Accidents

Published on: October 7, 2019 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Although injured workers must normally recover financial compensation from their employers through Florida workers’ compensation, an independent contractor may be able to recover for workplace injuries through a personal injury case. One federal appeals court recently dismissed a case that was brought in federal court involving an independent contractor who slipped and fell at a worksite. The court considered whether the hazard was one that the defendant was required to address or at least warn the plaintiff of.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff suffered a severe knee injury when he slipped on fluid at an auto dealership that the defendant owned. The auto dealership hired a cleaning company to clean the dealership, including scrubbing all service floors six times a week with a degreasing chemical provided by the dealership. The plaintiff was an employee of the cleaning company and was going to take out the trash at the dealership before scrubbing the floors in the service area when he slipped and fell on liquid on the floor. It appeared to be oil or transmission fluid. The plaintiff claimed that the dealership failed to warn the plaintiff of the hazardous condition, and that it failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.

The court found that the defendant could not be held liable because the plaintiff was hurt by a hazard that he was required to remedy. The court stated that a property owner generally has the same duty to the employees of independent contractors as it does to all other lawful visitors — to take reasonable and appropriate steps to prevent injury under the circumstances. However, in the case of independent contractors, property owners are not liable for risks that are “inherent in the job and of which the employee is fully aware.” That is, if a person is hired to remedy a hazard, that person would normally be aware of the potential of injury from that hazard. In contrast with the general public, that person would be aware of the risk they faced.

Establishing Liability Following Accidents on Florida Public Property

Published on: September 27, 2019 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Slip and fall accidents can occur virtually anywhere and often have a lifelong impact on the victim. Florida premises liability lawsuits can be challenging, but accidents that occur on public property are inherently more complex. Some common examples of defective or dangerous conditions on public property are slippery surfaces, uneven sidewalks, insufficient lighting, hazardous pedestrian areas, and unsafe stairways. These conditions can exist around public libraries, government buildings, courthouses, and city playgrounds. When an individual suffers injuries of this nature, they should retain a dedicated Florida injury attorney to understand their rights and remedies.

Generally, under Florida tort law, a person or entity can be liable for injuries that result because of their negligence. However, when the negligent party is a government agency or employee, the victim may not have any recourse due to government immunity laws. Government immunity prohibits individuals from suing a state or its employees for civil damages. However, there are some notable exceptions to this doctrine.

Florida’s sovereign immunity statute allows for lawsuits against government entities in specific situations. However, even in these situations, Florida victims must abide by the statute’s strict rules to prevent dismissal. Typically, Florida courts will only hear negligence cases filed within the four-year statute of limitations. However, the statute of limitations in government negligence lawsuits is three-years. Moreover, before a victim files a lawsuit, they must notify the Florida Department of Financial Services. A lawsuit is appropriate only after the state denies the claim or fails to reply. Further, generally, a plaintiff’s damages cannot exceed $200,000 per incident.

What Is an Intervening Cause in a Florida Premises Liability Lawsuit?

Published on: September 25, 2019 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Under Florida law, business and property owners must take steps to ensure that their land is free of dangers and safe for visitors. Typically, if a person sustains injuries because of a dangerous condition on another’s property, they can file a Florida premises liability lawsuit to recover for their injuries. In addition to establishing that the defendant violated a legal duty of care that was owed to the plaintiff, Florida injury victims must also prove that the defendant’s negligence was the actual or proximate cause of their injuries. Issues can arise if some independent intervening or superseding event breaks the causal link.

In many Florida personal injury lawsuits, causation is evident. For example, causation may be apparent when a person experiences shoulder pain after a car accident or breaks a leg tripping on a faulty staircase. However, an independent intervening cause is something that occurs after the defendant’s negligent act and contributes to or causes the plaintiff’s injuries. If the act is unforeseeable and causes an injury, the defendant may not be liable for the plaintiff’s damages.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a premises liability case in which the defendant claimed, amongst other issues, that the plaintiff’s injuries were not foreseeable. In that case, a truck driver parked his car in a rented space and fell asleep while awaiting a shipment. The driver awoke when he heard someone trying to break into the truck with a pry bar. When the truck driver stuck his head out of the window to see the culprit, the man drove the truck away with the driver hanging out of the cab. The truck driver’s head hit a trailer, and he was thrown out of the truck and run over numerous times.