Premises Liability

State Supreme Court Rules Against Woman Injured in Grocery Store Fall

Published on: August 15, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Nebraska Supreme Court recently released an opinion affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant in a premises liability lawsuit filed by a woman who was injured in a slip-and-fall accident while at a grocery store that was operated by the defendant. The high court agreed with the lower court’s findings that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to each of the elements of a successful premises liability or negligence claim. As a result of the state supreme court’s ruling, the plaintiff will not receive compensation for the injuries she suffered in the accident.

The Plaintiff Slipped on a Piece of Watermelon that Was Left on the Floor

The plaintiff in the case of Edwards v. Hy-Vee was injured as she was leaving the defendant’s store and slipped on what appeared to be a piece of watermelon that was on the floor. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, an employee of the defendant was handing out samples of watermelon approximately six feet from where the plaintiff fell, and the plaintiff noticed a watermelon seed on her shoe after the fall. The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the defendant in state district court, seeking compensation for her injuries and alleging that the defendant was responsible for the hazardous condition that caused her to fall, and it was liable for damages as a result.

State Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Plaintiff in Auto-Pedestrian Accident Case

Published on: July 22, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The California Court of Appeals recently released a decision reversing a lower court’s ruling in favor of the defendant in a premises liability lawsuit filed after the plaintiff was hit by a car while crossing the street from an overflow parking lot to the defendant’s establishment. The trial court had ruled that the defendant could not be held responsible for the man’s injuries because the accident occurred on a public street that the defendant did not own or control. The appellate court found that the defendant may be held accountable for negligence based on their ownership of the overflow parking lot and a duty to provide reasonable care. Based on the court of appeals’ opinion, the plaintiff may receive damages from his claim by a trial or if a settlement is reached.

The Plaintiff is Injured Crossing from the Overflow Parking Lot to the Church

The plaintiff in the case of Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church was a church member who intended to attend a church event in Sacramento, California on an evening in November of 2010. According to the facts discussed in the opinion, when the plaintiff arrived to the church the primary parking lot was full. The plaintiff was instead told to park in an overflow lot, which was located directly across a five-lane road from the church and had parking attendants on duty.

After parking his car, the plaintiff did not receive instructions from the parking attendants regarding how to cross the street and there was no crosswalk at the nearest intersection so he attempted to cross directly in front of the church, along with several other churchgoers. As the small group was crossing the street, a vehicle approached on the roadway and the parishioners began running, however, the plaintiff couldn’t avoid being struck by the vehicle.

State Supreme Court Rules in Favor of State Park in Premises Liability Lawsuit

Published on: July 19, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently reversed a lower court’s decision to grant the plaintiffs a new trial in a negligence and premises liability lawsuit, and instead instructed the court to enter judgment in favor of the defendant as a matter of law. The case was filed by a man who broke his neck and was paralyzed after he dove into a pond at a World War II veterans memorial park that was operated by the state. He alleged that the defendants were negligent in their operation of the pond by allowing swimming but failing to adequately warn the public of the shallow water and diving danger.

The Plaintiff Breaks His Neck After Diving into Murky Water

The plaintiff in the case of Roy v. Rhode Island is a man who was severely injured and left paralyzed from the neck down after he dove from an apparent diving platform into shallow water in a pond on the grounds of a veterans memorial park operated by the defendant. According to the facts, as reflected in the appellate opinion, the pond was man-made and operated much like a swimming pool. There were “no swimming” signs posted around the pond, although swimming would be permitted occasionally and the state employed lifeguards, even at times when swimming was not technically allowed. The plaintiff’s injury occurred when he dove into the pond from a wall that had reportedly been used frequently by members of the public for diving, although diving was not permitted, and the depth of the pond floor varied considerably.

The Trial, the Verdict, and the Appeal

After a long jury trial and over a week of deliberations, the jury reached a verdict that found the defendant had been negligent in failing to warn the plaintiff of the latent danger posed by the shallow water. However, the jury decided not to award any damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that the verdict was not consistent with the instructions given to the jury, and demanded a new trial, which was granted by the trial court. The defendant appealed the ruling to the state supreme court, additionally arguing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the state recreational use statute.

Personal Injury Claim Dismissed after Attorney Misses Hearing

Published on: July 8, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently published an opinion that affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss a plaintiff’s personal injury lawsuit. The reason for the dismissal was what appeared to be a simple clerical error, although the plaintiff’s attorney failed to respond to the motion to dismiss or attend the hearing that was scheduled to address the defendant’s motion. As a result of the state supreme court ruling, the plaintiff may be unable to receive compensation for his alleged injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence.

Plaintiff Was Allegedly Injured at Defendant’s Nightclub and Files Suit

According to the facts explained in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff filed a personal injury claim against the defendant, who was the owner of a bar and nightclub, after the plaintiff was injured in a fight at the nightclub. The plaintiff retained an attorney and filed a personal injury claim against the defendant. The plaintiff’s complaint misstated the date of the plaintiff’s injuries, claiming that the incident occurred over three years prior to the date the complaint was filed.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the three-year statute of limitations had passed, and the plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed too late. A hearing was scheduled for the parties to argue the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff’s attorney could have presumably requested to amend the complaint with the correct dates, although no objection was filed, and the plaintiff’s attorney didn’t attend the hearing. Since the defendant’s motion was not contested, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s case.

State Supreme Court Throws Out Jury Verdict in Premises Liability Case

Published on: June 27, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Appellate Court of West Virginia recently decided to reverse a judgment of over $55,000 that had been awarded to a plaintiff after a jury trial in a negligence case filed against a public parks commission by an injured plaintiff. The original verdict and award, based on the jury’s finding that the park operators had negligently failed to keep the grounds of the park safe for visitors, was reversed after the high court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the causation element of his premises liability claim. As a result of the recent ruling, the defendant has been relieved of any responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries as a matter of law, and the plaintiff will be unable to recover compensation for his claim.

Plaintiff Falls Down a Hill after Leaning on an Unsafe Fence

The plaintiff in the case of Wheeling Park Commission v. Dattoli was a man who was injured while visiting a park operated by the defendant in September 2007. According to the facts noted in the recent opinion, the plaintiff was with his wife standing atop a hill when he leaned against a fence post to rest and put his hand on the top rail. The plaintiff testified that he briefly inspected the fence rail before leaning on it, and it appeared to be in good repair. Despite its appearance, the wooden rail had partially decayed and was not strong enough to support the man’s weight, causing it to break from the fence post and sending the man over the lower railing and down the hill, causing him to seriously injure his shoulder.

Plaintiff Files a Personal Injury Lawsuit and is Awarded Damages in a Jury Trial

The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that their negligence in failing to properly keep up the fence or warn visitors that they shouldn’t lean on it was the cause of his injuries. At trial, the plaintiff called the park’s director of operations as a witness. The witness testified that the wooden fence was at least 17 years old at the time of the accident and could produce no evidence that the fence had been repaired or maintained since it was installed. Based on the evidence produced at the trial, a jury awarded the plaintiff over $55,000 for his medical expenses and lost wages as a result of the injuries he suffered.

State Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Favor of Drinking Establishment in Negligence Lawsuit

Published on: June 16, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Nebraska recently released a decision in which they upheld a lower court’s ruling that granted summary judgment to a drinking establishment in a negligence lawsuit that had been filed by a man who was injured after a disgruntled patron returned to the bar after being forcibly ejected and struck the plaintiff with his vehicle, causing serious injuries. The plaintiff had alleged that the bar owners failed to uphold their duty to protect him from the conduct of the disgruntled patron, although the lower court disagreed. As a result of the appellate ruling, the plaintiff will be unable to recover damages from the drinking establishment, although he may still hold the disgruntled patron accountable for damages that resulted from the assault.

The Plaintiff Was in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time and Suffered Serious Injuries as a Result

The plaintiff in the case of Pittman v. Rivera was a patron at a drinking establishment owned by the defendant, and he was struck by a car in the parking lot as he left the bar. Although the plaintiff had not been involved in any initial confrontation, the vehicle was being driven by a man who had been forcibly ejected from the bar for fighting earlier in the evening. According to the the facts recited in the appellate opinion, the driver of the vehicle was involved in an altercation with another patron and was thrown out of the bar by security and driven home by a designated driver, only to return shortly thereafter in his own vehicle. The driver was again escorted off the premises by security, after which he entered his vehicle and began driving recklessly, eventually driving toward a crowd of people that included the plaintiff. The plaintiff was warned verbally by security to get out of the way, but he was unable to avoid being hit by the speeding car.

Appellate Court Orders District Court to Allow Defendant’s Medical Expert to Examine Plaintiff in Personal Injury Case

Published on: June 2, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of the State of Texas recently released an opinion and issued a rarely utilized type of order allowing an expert retained by the defense in a personal injury lawsuit to perform a medical examination on the plaintiff during an ongoing premises liability lawsuit. The defense’s request, which was previously denied by the trial court, was made to allow the defense to present the most credible responses to the plaintiff’s claims at trial. Since the high court’s order was issued in a proceeding that is ongoing, the plaintiff’s claim for damages may still prevail, although he will be unable to prevent the defendant’s proposed expert from performing a medical examination on him before the case proceeds to trial.

The Plaintiff Was Injured Outside a Grocery Store Operated by the Defendant

The plaintiff in the case of Rodriguez v. H.E.B. Grocery Company filed a personal injury lawsuit after he alleged that he was injured when he tripped on an unsecured plate in the parking lot of a property that was operated by the defendant. In response to the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the defendant retained a medical expert to ascertain the source of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries and offer a medical opinion as to whether the injuries were caused by the plaintiff’s fall on the defendant’s property. After reviewing the medical records of the plaintiff but without performing a physical examination on him, the defendant’s expert offered a report that concluded the plaintiff’s injuries were likely the result of a pre-existing condition, rather than the injuries sustained on the defendant’s property, as the plaintiff alleges.

The Plaintiff Also Retains an Expert Who Performs a Physical Examination

In addition to the medical expert retained by the defense, the plaintiff also hired a doctor to serve as an expert witness and offer an opinion on the source of the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff’s expert performed a medical examination and would presumably testify that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the slip and fall on the defendant’s property. After the plaintiff’s expert was proposed to the court, the defendant requested that their expert be permitted to perform a physical examination on the plaintiff, arguing that a jury would give more weight to the plaintiff’s expert testimony merely because he was able to perform a full physical examination. The district court denied the defendant’s request, leading them to file an emergency appeal to the state supreme court.

State Supreme Court Dismisses Claim Against City for Failure to Meet Filing Deadline

Published on: May 5, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Maine Supreme Court recently released a decision that emphasizes the importance of following procedural requirements in filing a personal injury lawsuit, especially in cases in which the defendant is a governmental entity. The case of Deschenes v. City of Sanford was filed by the plaintiff after he fell down an allegedly dangerous staircase at the Sanford city hall and was injured from the fall.The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the city, although he did not give them a formal notice of claim until over 180 days after the injury occurred. Although the plaintiff had given the city oral notice of his injury, the city asked the court to rule in their favor and deny the plaintiff’s claim, based on the state requirement that plaintiffs must file a lawsuit against a government entity in Maine within 180 days of the alleged negligence.

Both Courts Agree that Oral Notice Is Not Sufficient to Comply with the Procedural Requirements

The plaintiff’s argument at the district court and on appeal was that he gave the city oral notice of his injury after it occurred, and he requested compensation for his injuries in person within 180 days of the accident. Both the district court and the Maine Supreme Court found that an official notice of claim needed to be provided in writing by the man or his attorney to comply with the state sovereign immunity act, and that the plaintiff’s oral request for compensation was not sufficient under the act. Based on the court’s decision to uphold the lower court’s decision, the plaintiff will not be compensated for his medical bills and injuries based on the alleged negligence of the city.

Judgment in Favor of County Fair Association Affirmed after Plaintiff Injured During Free Fireworks Display

Published on: April 21, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The North Dakota Supreme Court recently released an opinion that affirmed a lower court’s granting of summary judgment to the defendant, a county fair association, in a case that was filed by a woman who was injured during a fireworks display that was put on at the county fair. The court found that the defendant was protected from liability by what is known as “recreational land use immunity,” which is contained in the North Dakota state code. Based on the appellate ruling, the plaintiff will be unable to collect compensation for the injuries that she suffered due to the alleged negligence of the county fair association.

Plaintiff Is Allegedly Injured by Improperly Maintained Grandstand Equipment

The plaintiff in the case of Woody v. Pembina County Annual Fair and Exhibition Association was a woman who attended the county fair to watch a fireworks exhibition. According to the facts expressed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff stepped on a rotten board while looking for a seat in the grandstand and fell to the ground, suffering serious injuries.

After the case was filed, the defendant moved for judgment in their favor, arguing that as a non-profit entity that was offering the fair and fireworks exhibition free of charge, they were not liable for negligence under the recreational use immunity statute. The plaintiff disagreed, claiming that the defendant was operating the event for commercial purposes, and their non-profit status was not relevant to the determination of immunity.

Orlando Federal Court Remands Child’s Premises Liability Claim Back to Florida State Court

Published on: January 18, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In A.Z. v. Bonnet Creek Resort Vacation Condominium Assoc., Inc., a minor was apparently injured when she tripped and fell while visiting a Florida condominium complex. The Georgia resident later filed a lawsuit against the property owner in Orange County, Florida Circuit Court. In response to the purportedly injured child’s complaint, the condo association removed the lawsuit to federal court.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a civil case may be removed to federal court when no federal questions exist if the parties to a lawsuit are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. At the time of removal, the condominium association also requested discovery concerning the minor plaintiff’s Georgia citizenship. Following removal to federal court, the Middle District of Florida in Orlando ordered the parties to address whether remand back to a Florida state court was appropriate sua sponte, or of the court’s own accord. Generally, a court may take such an action without a request from either party if a case should be transferred to another court due to a conflict of interest, or the court believes it likely does not have jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute.