Slip and Fall

Florida Appellate Court Determines Water Company May Be Liable in Slip-and-Fall Case

Published on: May 4, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a Florida appellate court issued a written opinion in a premises liability case against a water company after a woman tripped on a valve owned by the company. The court ultimately determined that the water company may be held liable not just for the maintenance of the valve itself but also for the area surrounding the valve.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was walking on a public street when she tripped on a water valve cover. According to the plaintiff, the valve cover had become separated from the surrounding asphalt and had risen slightly above ground level, creating a tripping hazard. The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against both the city as well as the water company.

Three months after the plaintiff’s injury, the water company fixed the asphalt around the valve cover. The case proceeded toward trial, and in a pre-trial motion, the water company was successful in excluding evidence of the asphalt repairs it had made from the jury’s consideration. After that, the water company argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to show that it was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries because it was not responsible for maintaining the area around the valve cover. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the water company.

Court Holds Puddle of Rainwater Does Not Constitute a Dangerous Hazard in Recent Slip-and-Fall Case

Published on: April 24, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a slip-and-fall case that was brought by a woman who slipped and fell while attempting to board a train. The plaintiff filed her claim against the transportation agency that operated the train and maintained the station. However, since the woman was unable to prove that the puddle of rainwater in which she slipped constituted a “dangerous condition,” the case was dismissed.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff arrived at the train station on a rainy day. As she approached the station, she entered a covered platform where commuters would wait to board the train. A few feet from where the entrance to the covered platform was, there was a small puddle of rainwater that had accumulated due to the day’s rain.

The plaintiff later explained that she knew it had been raining, saw the puddle of water, and slipped as she stepped in the puddle. She explained that the concrete in the area where the puddle had formed was darker, as though water had been accumulating in that area for a period of months or years.

Florida Appellate Court Reiterates that Witness Credibility Is Not at Issue in Summary Judgment Proceedings

Published on: April 10, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a Florida appellate court issued a written opinion in a slip-and-fall case that was brought by a man who had fallen after slipping on a puddle of oil in a condominium complex. In reversing the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the appellate court held that it was improper for the court to assess the credibility of the plaintiff’s witness at the summary judgment stage.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was walking in a common area in the defendant’s condo complex when he slipped and fell after stepping in a puddle of oil. After picking himself up, the plaintiff noticed that the oil was coming from underneath the door to the elevator service closet. He estimated the puddle to be about four feet by five feet.

After the plaintiff informed the defendant of his fall, the defendant sent out an elevator technician to fix the leak. The technician determined that the leak was caused by a seal that had deteriorated. He estimated that the output was about one drip every two seconds; however, he did not provide an estimate regarding when the leak had started.

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.