Premises Liability

Written Interrogatories in Florida Slip and Fall Cases

Published on: April 3, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

An important aspect of the discovery process during litigation is the preparation of responses to interrogatories. A common practice among plaintiffs’ lawyers is to ask their clients to prepare handwritten responses to the defendant’s discovery. These responses are solely for the attorney’s benefit. Certain interrogatories may ask for an opinion or contention not within the personal knowledge of the plaintiff, though it is within the knowledge of the attorney. Therefore a written interrogatory response may differ from a draft response prepared by a plaintiff for her attorney.

In a recent appellate decision on a discovery battle, a plaintiff sought review of a court order compelling her to produce privileged attorney-client communications. The case arose because the woman filed suit against a supermarket alleging that she had suffered personal injuries after a slip and fall in a large puddle at the store.

The market had served a set of written interrogatories on the plaintiff during the discovery process. The plaintiff had answered them and verified them as true and correct to the best of her knowledge. One of the interrogatories asked her to provide the facts that formed the basis for her allegation that the defendant market knew of the dangerous condition.

Retroactive Application of a Statute in Florida Slip and Fall

Published on: March 7, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A recent case arose from a slip and fall that happened in a mall in 2008. The plaintiff had gone to the mall to buy clothes. The owner of the mall had contracted with a company to clean the mall. The plaintiff slipped on clear slippery material on the floor. She suffered injuries and had to seek medical treatment.

In 2010, she sued the owner of the mall and the cleaning company for negligence. She alleged they should have warned her, should not have let the spill remain on the ground and should have had a clean up plan to make sure spills didn’t stay on the floor. Before trial, the defendants moved for a ruling that section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010), applied retroactively and would control the trial. The court denied the motion, and decided that the 2008 version of the statute would be operative.

During the trial’s voir dire, the trial court asked prospective jurors who had participated in a trial or had a family member who had been involved in a trial, other than a divorce. Four jurors answered that they hadn’t been involved in a trial previously. After the plaintiff’s presentation, the defendant moved for a directed verdict. They argued that the motion for directed verdict should have been granted because the plaintiff failed to show their actual or constructive knowledge of the spill or even that they’d breached the standard of care under 768.0710 or 768.0755.

Confidential Settlements in Florida

Published on: March 4, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a Florida plaintiff’s daughter posted a status update on her father’s settlement. It proved to be a terrible error in judgment. The father had been a headmaster whose contract was not renewed. He sued his former employer in federal court and won an $80,000 settlement. The agreement included a confidentiality clause. It prohibited both the plaintiff and the school from talking about the case.

His daughter, however, bragged about the settlement on Facebook to 1200 friends, noting it would pay for her vacation to Europe and telling the school to “suck it.” A number of the friends were former classmates at the prep school, which she had attended. When the school’s lawyers found out, they stated they wouldn’t pay. The plaintiff filed a motion to enforcement the settlement. In his view, his daughter was retaliated against and was a part of what was happening. She had known about the mediation and he felt he had to share what had happened with her. He won the motion to enforce in Circuit Court, but the school appealed.

The Third District Court of Appeal for the state of Florida found for the school and reversed the Circuit Court, throwing out the $80,000 settlement. The court explained that the daughter had done exactly what the agreement was supposed to prevent.

Slip and Falls in Landscaped Areas in Florida

Published on: January 28, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

While landowners in Florida have a responsibility to maintain their property in a safe condition or warn of nonobvious dangers, this duty may not apply if you are walking someplace on the property you are not supposed to be, such as landscaped areas, when other options are available.

In a recent case, a man went to the store Sam’s Club to buy something. He parked in their parking lot, which was landscaped with dirt, trees and grass that was not bounded with curbs. It had walkways that permitted people to walk from one landscaped area to the next without stepping onto the landscaped area. No signs told people to use these walkways.

The man left his car and tried to move through the landscaped area towards the store entrance. He knew there were walkways, but he chose to walk through the landscaping because it presented a shorter distance from the car to the entrance. His foot caught on a tree root and the man fell on a parking stop. He had to be taken to the hospital.

“Open and Obvious” Dangers in Florida

Published on: November 4, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Slip and fall cases can be difficult to prove, particularly if the hazard that causes the fall is somewhat “open” or “obvious.” A recent case arose when a customer at Home Depot parked her car in a designated accessible parking space and upon returning to her car tripped over a wheel stop where her car was parked. It was a clear, sunny morning and she was carrying her purchases, a purse and keys.

The woman looked at the accessibility sign, but did not see the wheel stop because it was the same color as the parking lot. Her left foot caught on the wheel stop and she fell. She was hurt and had medical expenses. She and her husband filed a personal injury lawsuit against Home Depot.

The plaintiffs argued that the wheel stop was a dangerous condition and the defendant had an obligation to maintain the premises and to warn of any dangerous conditions on the property. Home Depot moved for summary judgment, arguing that the wheel stop was an “open and obvious” danger and therefore, it had no duty to warn customers about the wheel stop. It also argued there were no disputed issues of fact regarding its maintenance of the property.

When Must a Plaintiff’s Attorney Recuse Him or Herself in a Florida Trip and Fall Case?

Published on: September 3, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Trip and fall cases can be difficult to prove in Florida. A critical aspect of preparing a case is interviewing witnesses, including the property owner or manager. Usually an investigator does this investigation alone. Sometimes, an attorney accompanies the investigator, but this can raise certain risks, such as the risk that the attorney will become a witness. This is particularly likely in multi-party personal injury cases.

In a recent trip and fall case, a Florida appellate court considered whether an attorney had to be disqualified after becoming a witness. Subsequent to the initial appellate ruling, the appellate court granted a motion for rehearing and substituted a different opinion.

In the case, a plaintiff sued a store for personal injuries after tripping and falling near the store entrance in a shopping center. A guardrail had been taken away from a handicap access ramp, leaving a hole that the plaintiff tripped on. Her tibia and shoulder were broken, requiring surgery.

Duty to Preserve Evidence in Florida Premises Liability Cases

Published on: August 20, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

After you’re hurt in an accident, you might assume that the people who caused your injury will behave ethically, keeping any evidence that you may need at trial. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. The insurance carrier for a store, hospital or other entity is not on your side. Its duty is to its insured, not to you. That’s why it is critical to consult with a personal injury attorney immediately after an accident if you believe someone else might have been at fault.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal considered the duty to preserve evidence in Florida premises liability cases. The ruling reached by the court was very unfavorable to plaintiffs and illustrates the importance of proactively retaining an attorney as soon as you are aware of injuries.

In the case, a woman slipped and fell in a store, shattering her wrist. She had two surgeries, but experts believed more surgeries would be needed later. Within a week of the incident, the woman and the store’s insurance carrier talked several times and she gave an insurance agent a statement. She told the agent she slipped two steps beyond the front door mat, which was wet from rain. She also told the agent how much time she missed from work and notified the agent of her need for surgery.

The Defense Goes Too Far While Arguing a Florida Premises Liability Case

Published on: August 12, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

As we have explained in earlier posts, Florida has become a comparative negligence state. This means that a plaintiff whose own conduct contributes to his injuries will have his or her award reduced by the percentage of fault that can be attributed to him.

In a case decided last year, a plaintiff challenged the trial court’s judgment, which found her 80% comparatively negligent for her slip and fall at Wal-Mart, and also appealed the denial of her motion for new trial. The store cross-appealed on the grounds that the trial court had improperly dubbed its proposal for settlement invalid.

The case arose when the plaintiff slipped and fell in the store. She claimed there was something slippery on the floor and that she was injured such that she required neck and shoulder surgery.

What is Florida’s “Obvious Danger” Doctrine?

Published on: August 5, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Florida premise liability cases, the obvious danger doctrine allows a landowner to avoid liability where the condition that caused the injury was known or obvious to the person who was injured.

In a recent case, a woman sued a market after tripping on a mat outside the public entrance to the store. The woman and her husband went to the market to buy groceries. The couple couldn’t remember if the mat was present at the entrance when they entered the store. However, the woman did remember that she’d seen the mat in front of the door on prior trips to the store.

After they were done shopping the man took the shopping cart of purchases to the car while the woman stayed inside to buy some additional items. The man noticed that an employee was laying the mat at the door as he left. The mat was not perfectly flat.

When the woman left the store, she tripped on the mat and fell, injuring her neck, elbows and knees. Later the husband would testify that a representative of the store claimed they were at fault at the time. The woman filed a premises liability complaint against the store, alleging that it failed to warn of a dangerous condition.

Florida Appellate Court Applies Slip and Fall Law Retroactively

Published on: May 31, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A Florida business owner owes two duties to those he or she invites into their business: (1) to take ordinary and reasonable care to keep the premises of the business safe and (2) to warn of any dangers actually or constructively known by the owner that the visitor to the business could not be aware of on his own.

In 2001, a ruling in a Florida Supreme Court case shifted the burden of proof to business owners who were sued when someone slipped and fell on a foreign substance on their premises. The owners had to show they exercised reasonable care in maintaining the property. This was a change from earlier case law that required the plaintiff to prove the owner’s negligence.

The Florida Legislature responded by enacting an amendment to the Florida statutes. The amendment took effect in 2010. It required that a plaintiff prove the breach of the second duty in slip and fall premises liability cases: that the owner knew or should have known of a slip and fall hazard in a business establishment. This essentially returned slip and fall law to the state it had been in before the Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling.

Recently, the Florida District Court of Appeals considered the issue of whether the amendment could have retroactive effect on a plaintiff’s case stemming from her slip and fall on the floor of the Miami International Airport. The plaintiff in that case filed suit in 2009. At that time the slip and fall statute in effect did not require the plaintiff to prove the owner’s actual or constructive knowledge of a transitory foreign substance in order to recover for premises liability.