Articles Posted in Slip and Fall

Plaintiffs who make a premises liability or other personal injury claim in Florida are often required to testify at the trial. A victim’s testimony can be used to describe how an injury occurred or to explain the effects that an injury has had on their quality of life. In cases of injuries with no eyewitnesses, surveillance footage, or other documentary evidence of a plaintiff’s injury, the plaintiff’s testimony can be the most crucial evidence in the case. Because a jury often decides cases based on the credibility and trustworthiness of a witness, defendants will often try to smear a plaintiff’s credibility so that a jury will not believe the testimony. The Florida Court of Appeal recently affirmed a trial judge’s ruling, which allowed the defendant’s counsel to attack the credibility of a personal injury plaintiff during cross-examination.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case was allegedly injured in a slip and fall incident at the defendant’s retail store. According to the facts discussed in the judicial opinion, the alleged slip-and-fall was not caught on camera, and the plaintiff’s credibility was a central feature of the trial. Before trial, the defense had asked the plaintiff’s attorney to furnish income and other financial information as part of the discovery process. The plaintiff’s attorney refused the request, responding that the requested information was not relevant to the plaintiff’s claims.

At trial, the plaintiff testified about what happened on the day of the incident. Defense counsel cross-examined the plaintiff, bringing up that their attorney refused to supply the requested income information. The questions were permitted despite the plaintiff’s objection that the questioning was irrelevant and damaged the plaintiff’s credibility. After the trial, the jury came back with a verdict in favor of the defendant.

In a recent case, the Second District Court of Appeals in Florida issued an opinion in an appeal involving a dispute between a patron, Marvel Martin, and a restaurant, Columbia Food Service. Mrs. Martin tripped on a hexagonal piece of pavement immediately outside of the restaurant doors and contends that Columbia Restaurant was responsible for maintaining the sidewalk. Specifically, Mrs. Martin contends that Columbia had joint and shared responsibility with the City of Tampa for the pavers located around the Restaurant. Stating that Columbia Restaurant had actual possession and control of the sidewalk and therefore assumed the duty to keep it free from dangerous conditions. They further state that Columbia Restaurant’s duty extends beyond the confines of the Restaurant because it invited customers to use that sidewalk for entrance and exit to the location.

On May 21, 2017, Mrs. Martin was having lunch with her sister at the Columbia Restaurant. As she was leaving, she tripped on an uneven hexagonal paver located directly beneath the awning that the Columbia Restaurant owns and maintains. The awning is attached to the Restaurant and is supported by pillars affixed above the sidewalk. The City of Tampa permits Columbia Restaurant to erect the awning, but the agreement makes no mention of the sidewalk. Columbia Restaurant has porters check the sidewalk for debris each morning, and each week, the porters power-wash the sidewalk and parking lot. Based on these facts, the trial court granted summary judgment in Columbia Restaurant’s favor.

Mrs. Martin appeals, stating that Columbia Restaurant has joint and shared responsibility with the City of Tampa for maintaining the sidewalk and that the Restaurant has actual possession and control of the sidewalk, making it their responsibility to keep it free of dangerous conditions. Additionally, Mrs. Martin contends that it is Columbia Restaurant’s duty extends beyond the confines of the Restaurant as it invites customers to use the sidewalk for ingress and egress.

The Supreme Court of Florida recently approved the district court’s decision in a negligence case related to a slip-and-fall. The plaintiff sought to recover past medical expenses due to the fall on the defendant’s property. A jury awarded the plaintiff $34,642 for past medical expenses. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court abused its discretion in prohibiting her from introducing evidence of the gross amount of her past medical expenses and limiting her to raising only the discounted amounts paid by Medicare.

In analyzing the case, the Court addressed the holding in Joerg v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 176 So. 3d 1247 (Fla. 2015). In that case, the Court concluded that future Medicare benefits are both uncertain and a liability due to the right of reimbursement that Medicare retains. The Court held that Joerg is not relevant because it set the scope of its holding to evidence concerning future Medicare benefits, which is not in dispute in the current case.

Recent case law from Florida highlights the issues many plaintiffs encounter when trying to recover maximum compensation for their injuries. Generally, Florida’s collateral source rule hinders juries from hearing evidence of a party’s payments from third-party payers. However, a narrow exception carved out in Florida Physician’s Insurance Reciprocal v. Stanley caused significant confusion amongst courts. Further, in Joerg v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the Court reasoned that where Medicare benefits subjects beneficiaries to CMS’ enforcement tools, including demands for reimbursement, receiving Medicare constitutes a “serious liability.” The Florida Supreme Court also noted that Medicare benefits are too speculative to serve as a basis to reduce a claimant’s future medical damages.

Recently, an appeals court issued an opinion stemming from a woman’s injuries after falling in a Florida restaurant parking lot. According to the record, the woman and her then-boyfriend were meeting another couple at another restaurant in Naples. The man dropped the woman off in front of the restaurant while looking for parking. As the woman was looking toward the restaurants in the area, she tripped and fell to the ground. The victim could not specify what caused her fall, but it occurred around the pavers in front of the restaurant.

The woman filed lawsuits against the City and restaurant, adding that the restaurant negligently or incorrectly stalled the pavers, making them dangerous. The restaurant moved for summary judgment, asserting several defenses. The lower court ruled in favor of the restaurant’s motion to dismiss, and the woman appealed. On appeal, she argued that the restaurant failed to establish that they did not maintain a duty to the woman. In response, the restaurant claimed that it did not have a duty to maintain the public sidewalk and that it was the City’s responsibility.

In Florida premises liability cases, the inquiry into a defendant’s duty of care is not dependent upon ownership, instead of whether the party has control over the premises. The law requires those who have control over premises to keep the premises safe and in repair. Further, in cases where two entities share control of premises, the law imposes the duty of care upon both of them.

Florida business owners have a duty to maintain their property to a reasonable standard of safety for their patrons. This duty includes the responsibility to keep public areas of the business free from dangerous conditions, such as broken glass, spilled liquids, or icy pathways. A business owner can only be held liable for a hazard that they either knew existed or should have known existed at the time of an accident. The Florida Court of Appeals recently addressed a case in which a grocery store was sued by a customer after they were injured when slipping on a hazardous substance in a shopping aisle.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case was shopping at the defendant’s store when they slipped on a dangerous substance in the aisle and were injured. Based on the facts referenced in the appellate opinion, there was no evidence introduced by the plaintiff to demonstrate how long the dangerous condition had existed prior to the plaintiff’s injury. The plaintiff sued the defendant in state court for negligence, alleging that the defendant negligently failed to maintain their store to a safe condition and that the plaintiff was injured as a result.

The trial court rejected the plaintiff’s claim, finding that a valid Florida premises liability claim requires a plaintiff to show with evidence that the defendant had actual, or constructive knowledge of a hazard and negligently failed to act to remediate the hazard. Defendants cannot be held liable for conditions that they could not have been in a position to cure. Because the plaintiff submitted no evidence that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of a hazardous condition, the claim failed under Florida law.

Because of Florida’s mild weather, it is unsurprising that many people choose to spend their winter holiday enjoying the state’s beaches and sunshine. While out and about this holiday season, it is still important to be cautious of your surroundings and environment, especially with crowds. When near water, there are often sharp rocks, poorly maintained infrastructure, or areas particularly prone to accidents or injuries taking place. To best protect yourself and your loved ones, it is crucial to stay vigilant this holiday season.

In a recent District Court of Appeal decision, the court had to consider a negligence action resulting from a slip and fall that took place on a Florida seawall dock. In the case in question, the plaintiff alleged breaches of duty by the defendant stemming from the defendant’s failure to safely maintain its premises and their failure to warn the plaintiff of the seawall’s dangerous condition. The plaintiff was using a specific part of the dock for the first time when he tripped and fell because of a divot. In response, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s negligence was the sole cause of the accident and that they did not owe a duty to warn the plaintiff because the cracked seawall from which the plaintiff was injured was open and obvious, so the plaintiff’s knowledge was equal to or greater than the defendant’s.

The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment, stating that the divot on which the plaintiff tripped was clearly visible and should have been obvious to the plaintiff. Although the defendant technically owed a duty to warn the plaintiff and to maintain its premises safely, the open and obvious nature of the condition precluded a finding of breached duty from the defendant.

If you are injured in a slip and fall accident in Florida, it is crucial that you know what options you have to recover. Should you decide to file a personal injury claim, there are various laws that may apply to your case. Because Florida is one of the few states with detailed slip and fall laws, potential plaintiffs are advised to hire an experienced slip and fall or personal injury lawyer to assist them with navigating their lawsuit.

In a recent District Court of Appeal decision, the court considered a slip and fall injury that took place in a Winn-Dixie grocery store in Florida. The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the defendant, Winn-Dixie, alleging that she suffered injury after slipping on liquid detergent on the floor of the grocery store. According to the plaintiff’s testimony, there were no footprints in the detergent, and she had no knowledge of how long the detergent had been on the floor or whether any employees knew of the spill. A Winn-Dixie store manager testified that five minutes before the incident, an employee had checked the area. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of Winn-Dixie, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment to the grocery store because discovery was ongoing and there was an abuse of discretion. The District Court of Appeal disagreed and found no abuse of discretion. Because trial courts can grant a motion for summary judgment despite the pendency of discovery, the lower court did not err in its decision.