Slip and Fall

Appellate Court Refuses To Consider Evidence Presented for the First Time on Appeal

Published on: March 27, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a Rhode Island appellate court issued a written opinion discussing principles that are important to understand for anyone considering filing a personal injury case in South Florida. The case arose out of a slip-and-fall accident that occurred in a public park. The issue for the court to decide was whether evidence of the city’s knowledge of the dangerous condition was admissible when it was presented to the court for the first time on appeal. The court held that the evidence, as well as any argument stemming from the evidence, was not admissible because it was not presented to the trial court.

A Boy Breaks His Leg While Playing Baseball

The plaintiffs’ son was playing baseball in a public park that was owned and operated by the defendant city. During the game, the plaintiffs’ son slid into home plate and got his lower leg stuck under the base. As he stood up, he broke his leg in two places. The plaintiffs filed a premises liability lawsuit, claiming that the city was negligent in failing to safely maintain the park, including the home plate where their son was injured.

The defendant city claimed that it was immune from liability under the recreational use statute, which protects landowners that allow others to use their land for recreational purposes and do not charge a fee for doing so. The plaintiffs made only a broad objection to the applicability of the recreational use statute, without explaining the basis for the objection. The court ultimately granted the city’s motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs appealed.

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.

Court Characterizes Doctor’s Office Slip-and-Fall Accident as a Medical Malpractice Incident

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

Earlier this month, a West Virginia appellate court issued a written opinion in a slip-and-fall case illustrating one of the difficulties plaintiffs may encounter when their injury occurs at a hospital or doctor’s office. The issue in the case was whether the plaintiff’s slip-and-fall case should have been characterized as a premises liability case or a medical malpractice case. Ultimately, the court held that since the injury occurred while the plaintiff was seeking “health care related” services, the case was properly considered a medical malpractice case.The case involved an elderly woman who accompanied her husband to an urgent care facility. After the couple arrived and checked in, they were shown to the examination room by a medical assistant. The medical assistant instructed the patient to get onto the examination table and wait for the doctor to arrive. As the man attempted to climb onto the table, he fell, landing on his wife. Shortly after the incident, the man died from complications related to the injuries he sustained in the fall.

The man’s wife filed a personal injury case against the urgent care facility under a premises liability theory. However, the urgent care facility claimed that the case should have been brought under the state’s medical malpractice statute, arguing that it was “related” to the provision of health care services. The court agreed.

Woman Fails to Show Fall at Fast Food Restaurant’s Entrance Was Caused by Restaurant’s Negligence

Published on: February 20, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recently decided premises liability case, a woman fell as she was entering a fast food restaurant and later brought a lawsuit against the business. The woman alleged that she tried to open the doors to enter the restaurant but that the doors were difficult to open and that she fell while trying to enter the restaurant. She claimed she was pushing on the door when her feet “just slipped out from under [her].” She said that she did not recall seeing water on the floor before her fall and that there was a mat on the floor in the area of her fall. When asked, she could not explain what caused her to fall. The restaurant filed an affidavit in response to the woman’s claim, stating that it was not aware of any problems with its entry doors.After examining the evidence, a state court granted summary judgment in favor of the restaurant. The court found the woman failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the restaurant caused her injuries. The court explained that in premises liability claims concerning a breach of the general negligence standard, “mere speculation” as to causation is not enough to show causation and prevent summary judgment.

Classes of Entrants in Premises Liability Claims

Often, in premises liability claims, the same legal standards apply as in other negligence claims. However, in Florida, the general negligence standard does not apply when an injury is caused by a defect or a dangerous condition in the premises. In addition, in premises liability claims, the duty a landowner owes to a plaintiff depends on the relationship between the landowner and the plaintiff. There are three classes of entrants on land: trespassers, licensees, and invitees.

State Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Claim Against Teacher in Wrongful Death Lawsuit

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

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently published an opinion affirming a Georgia court of appeals’ decision to affirm a trial court’s grant of judgment to a defendant teacher, whose alleged negligence in failing to supervise her class resulted in the death of the plaintiff’s son. The defendant had allegedly left the classroom, and the defendant’s son was killed as a result of “horseplay” that occurred in her absence. With the most recent decision of the Georgia Supreme Court, the plaintiff will not be able to collect damages from the teacher for the claim against her in her individual capacity.`

The Plaintiff’s Son Dies After Another Student Crushes Him During “Horseplay”

The plaintiff in the case is the mother of a boy who died as a result of injuries that he sustained as a student in the defendant’s American Literature class at the defendant high school. According to the appellate court’s discussion of the underlying facts of the case, the teacher left the classroom for 30 minutes or more during and after the period of time when the plaintiff’s son sustained the injuries that ultimately took his life.

When asked by school administrators about what happened after the student’s death, the defendant first lied, stating that she was in her classroom the whole time. After the death of her son, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death claim against several defendants, including the teacher both in her official capacity as a teacher and in her individual capacity.

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.

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.

Court Sides with Plaintiff, Reversing Judgment for Defendant in Slip-and-Fall Case

Published on: November 17, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Kentucky recently published an opinion reversing two lower courts’ decisions that had granted judgment to the defendant in a lawsuit filed by a man who was injured when he slipped and fell outside the shower while staying at the defendant’s hotel. The trial court and state court of appeals had ruled that the plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care to avoid injuring himself, and hotels are not the insurers of their guests’ safety. The Supreme Court found the lower courts’ analysis insufficient and reversed the rulings, remanding the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Plaintiff Slips in a Hotel Bathroom

The plaintiff in the case of Goodwin v. Al J. Snider was a guest at the defendant’s hotel. After he took a shower in his room, he got out and slipped on the bathroom floor, injuring his knee. There was not a bathmat in the hotel bathroom at the time of the fall, although other rooms had bathmats, and the hotel later supplied him with one upon request.

The plaintiff later filed a slip and fall lawsuit, alleging that the defendant violated the duty it owed to guests to exercise reasonable care to warn guests of the dangerous condition presented by a slippery floor or to take measures to lessen the dangers presented.

State Appellate Court Reverses Judgment for Defendant in Bus Accident Case

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

A panel of the California Court of Appeals recently published an opinion reversing a trial court’s entry of a judgment favoring the defendant in a case filed by a woman who was injured while boarding a shuttle bus operated by the defendant. The appellate court found that the lower court’s decision not to impose at least a duty of ordinary care on the defendant was not justifiable under the circumstances. Since the previous judgment in favor of the defendant has been reversed, the plaintiff’s claim will return to the trial court to proceed toward a settlement, trial, or other disposition.

Plaintiff Is Injured Boarding a Shuttle Bus to the Defendant’s Casino

The plaintiff in the case of Huang v. The Bicycle Casino was injured in a fall when she was pushed to the ground by other passengers as they all attempted to board a shuttle bus that was operated by the defendant as part of a promotion to attract customers to a casino. According to the facts discussed in the opinion, it was relatively common for there to be more passengers attempting to board the shuttle buses than there were seats available, which resulted in a chaotic boarding situation that the plaintiff alleged was the cause of her broken hip that she suffered when she was pushed to the ground. The plaintiff later filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, seeking damages as compensation for her injuries.

The Trial Court Grants Summary Judgment to the Defendant on All Claims

After the plaintiff’s case was filed, the parties disputed the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant was providing transportation to the public as a “common carrier,” a designation that triggers a heightened duty to ensure passengers’ safety. The defendant successfully argued to the trial court that since the shuttle buses do not collect a fare, they should not be treated as a common carrier. The trial court found under the circumstances that the defendant only had a duty to provide ordinary care and that the plaintiff’s injuries were outside the realm of that duty. As a result of these findings, the trial court entered judgment for the defendant on all of the plaintiff’s claims, forcing her to file an appeal to continue her case.