Premises Liability

Florida Rollerblade Injury Case Dismissed Under Recreational Immunity Statute

Published on: October 12, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida landowners generally have a duty to make sure that their property is safe to those whom they invite onto their property. If a landowner, including a business or government entity, fails to maintain their property, and someone is injured as a result, the injured party may be able to recover compensation for their injuries through a Florida premises liability lawsuit.There is an exception to this general rule, however, and that lies within the Florida recreational use statute, F.S. 375-251. The statute provides immunity from liability to certain landowners who open up their land for the public’s general use. In order to qualify for this immunity, a landowner must not charge a fee for the use of the land. A recent Florida appellate opinion discusses the applicability of a recreational use statute to a rollerblade injury case, finding that the plaintiff was prevented from bringing a lawsuit against the government entity he claimed was responsible for his injuries.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was rollerblading on the street in Delray Beach when he encountered a pothole. Unable to maintain his balance as he hit the pothole, the plaintiff fell to the ground, resulting in serious injuries. The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the City of Delray Beach. The plaintiff admitted that it was against the law to rollerblade in the street but nonetheless argued that the city was negligent in maintaining the roadway and letting a pothole develop.

Plaintiff Injured by Fallen Tree Permitted to Proceed with Case Against Property Owner

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

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a premises liability lawsuit brought by a woman who was injured when a fallen tree struck her in the apartment complex where she lived. The case presented the court with the opportunity to determine whether the plaintiff’s case was sufficient as a matter of law and should therefore survive the summary judgment challenge filed by the defendants. This case is helpful for South Florida premises liability plaintiffs because it clearly illustrates the elements of a premises liability lawsuit.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a tenant at the defendants’ apartment complex. One day, during a particularly heavy storm, a tree on an adjacent piece of property was knocked over. As the tree fell, it got caught on the gutter of the apartment building where the plaintiff lived.

The tree remained suspended from the apartment building for some time. The plaintiff reached out to the defendants, asking them to remove the tree, but no action was taken. Ultimately, the plaintiff contacted a fellow resident she knew to also work as a part-time maintenance worker for the defendants.

Plaintiff’s Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Florida Swimming Pool Owner Dismissed

Published on: September 18, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Establishing the breach of a duty is one of the most contested issues in South Florida premises liability lawsuits. Essentially, in order to establish this element, a plaintiff must point to some negligent act or omission of the defendant that violated a duty owed to the plaintiff.Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury lawsuit filed by the father of a young boy who drowned while swimming in a pool at a condominium complex. The appellate court was tasked with determining if the trial court was proper to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s failure to establish that the defendant was negligent. After reviewing each of the plaintiff’s claims, the court determined that the condo association was not negligent in any way and affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff’s son was swimming in a pool that was located inside a condominium complex operated by the defendant condo association. The boy was accompanied by several family members, none of whom lived in the condo complex. While the boy’s aunt did live in the complex, she was not present while the group was using the pool.

Court Dismisses Appeal Due to Plaintiff’s Failure to Plead Alternative Theory of Liability Below

Published on: September 14, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When a plaintiff files a Florida personal injury claim, it is imperative that they name all of the potentially liable parties and include all of the relevant theories of liability as soon as practicable. This often means conducting a thorough investigation prior to filing the lawsuit in order to make sure that a plaintiff has all of the information to properly file a case. Of course, it is possible to amend a complaint after it is initially filed for a short time; however, if a plaintiff waits too long to amend a complaint, they will be stuck with what was initially pleaded.This can create several problems for Florida personal injury plaintiffs. For example, the trial judge can only instruct the jury on the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s complaint. Thus, even if a plaintiff uncovers evidence during the trial that may help them prove liability through an unpleaded theory, they may be prevented from doing so. A recent premises liability case issued by a state appellate court illustrates how exacting appellate courts can be when interpreting the allegations of a plaintiff’s initial complaint.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was an investor looking to buy a rental property through the defendant realtor. One of the defendant’s listings was a home that had a pool in the back yard. The defendant contacted a pool maintenance company and performed the necessary maintenance to the pool prior to listing the home.

Appellate Court Determines Parking Lot Slip-and-Fall Case Erroneously Dismissed by Lower Court

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

Last month, one state’s appellate court issued a written opinion in a premises liability lawsuit that required the court to determine if the lower court was proper in granting the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Ultimately, the court concluded that since the plaintiff presented evidence that gave rise to a factual issue regarding the defendant’s potential negligence, the case should have been presented to a jury, rather than being decided by the trial judge.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a tenant in an apartment complex that was owned and operated by the defendant. One winter day, the plaintiff was planning on going to the hardware store with a family member. As he exited his apartment and approached his truck, he slipped on a patch of black ice, falling on his shoulder. The fall resulted in a torn rotator cuff that required surgery to repair.

The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the defendant, claiming that the defendant was negligent in maintaining the common areas of the apartment complex. The plaintiff testified that prior to the day of his accident, the defendant had cleared snow from the complex parking lot to an area that was slightly above the level of the parking lot. He explained that the snow melted during the day, resulting in water running onto the parking lot surface that later re-froze as the temperature dropped overnight.

Errant Golf Ball Strikes Baby in Stroller on Nearby City-Owned Walking Path

Published on: June 5, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion in a premises liability case that was brought by the mother of a child who was struck by an errant golf ball as she was wheeling her son in a stroller on a walking path owned and maintained by the city. The appellate court hearing the case determined that the city was not entitled to government trail immunity because the dangerous hazard that caused the injury was not a condition of the trail itself.

The Facts of the Case

The walking path where the injury occurred directly abuts a private golf course. A few years before the accident, the golf course installed a fence and strategically planted large trees to decrease the likelihood that golf balls would leave the course. However, there was no evidence that the city took any precaution regarding golf balls that were hit out of the boundaries of the golf course.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the city as well as the golf course. The plaintiff claimed that the city failed to take any action to remedy the known dangerous condition created by the potential of errant golf balls.

Court Applies Government Immunity in Bicycle Accident, Dismissing Plaintiff’s Claim

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

Earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released a written opinion in a premises liability lawsuit against the federal government, alleging that the United States Forest Service, through its employees, was negligent in the maintenance of bike trails in a forest. The court ultimately determined that the alleged acts of negligence were covered under governmental immunity, and it rejected the plaintiff’s claims.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and a friend were mountain biking in the De Soto National Forest. The bikers began their trip at the Couch Loop Trail. While the trail was closed, the plaintiff did not stop at the trail-head bulletin board, where the notice of closure was posted.

The plaintiff and her friend rode the Couch Loop Trail until they decided to take an “alternate route” to the left. This alternate route led the bikers to an area with several obstacles that had been built by a local bike association. As the plaintiff attempted to negotiate one of the obstacles, she fell off her bike and was seriously injured. She then filed a premises liability lawsuit against the U.S. government, claiming that the Forest Service was negligent in its maintenance of the bike trails. The plaintiff also alleged that the Forest Service was negligent in failing to warn her about the potential dangerous conditions present on the trails.

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.