Slip and Fall

Florida Court Dismisses Slip-and-Fall Case Against Cruise Line: Torres v. Carnival Corp.

Published on: July 25, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Southern District of Florida has dismissed a slip-and-fall case against a cruise ship operator. In Torres v. Carnival Corp., a passenger on a cruise ship filed a negligence and failure to warn lawsuit against the company that owns the vessel on which she traveled, seeking damages for the injuries she allegedly sustained in a slip-and-fall accident on an exterior deck. According to the woman, she tripped over a raised threshold that was obscured by a rug while walking through an opening during disembarkation.

In response to the woman’s lawsuit, the cruise ship company filed a motion for summary judgment. When a party to a lawsuit files such a motion, the party is asking the court to find that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must view all of the evidence offered by each party in the light that is most favorable to the non-moving party. When a summary judgment motion is granted, a court is essentially stating a jury trial is not required based on the facts of the dispute.

To prove negligence, an injured person is required to demonstrate that an at-fault party owed him or her a duty, violated that duty, and directly caused his or her harm because of that violation. According to the Southern District of Florida, the woman failed to carry her burden of proving negligence because she did not demonstrate the carpet lying on the threshold was unreasonably dangerous. In fact, testimony offered to the court suggested exactly the opposite was true. In addition, the court stated that even if a dangerous condition existed, the cruise ship did not fail to warn the woman because Florida does not require any warning for an obvious hazard like a rug.

Diversity Jurisdiction at Issue in Florida Premises Liability Case: Mortensen v. Omni Hotels Management Corp.

Published on: June 12, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A federal district court in Florida has ordered that a man’s premises liability lawsuit be tried before a Nassau County court. In Mortensen v. Omni Hotels Management Corp., a man was allegedly injured when he slipped and fell while visiting a restaurant located inside of an Omni Hotel franchise. Prior to filing his case, the man offered to settle his claim against the hotel for $250,000. After the hotel refused the man’s settlement offer, he filed a premises liability lawsuit against the company in Nassau County, Florida. In his complaint, the man asked the court to award him “more than $15,000” in compensation for his medical care, pain and suffering, and a number of other supposedly continuing damages. The hotel removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and the man promptly asked the federal court to remand the case back to state court.

In order to remove a lawsuit to federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) states the parties must be citizens of different states and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. According to the Middle District of Florida, the injured man and the hotel chain agreed that they hailed from different states. The only question at issue in the case related to the amount in controversy. Since the hotel sought to remove the case to federal court and the injured man did not specify the amount of damages he sought, the federal court stated the burden of demonstrating the amount in controversy was more than $75,000 fell on the business. Additionally, the court said any doubts regarding proper federal jurisdiction should be decided in favor of remanding the case to state court.

Next, the Florida federal court examined the facts of the case. Although a settlement offer may provide evidence regarding the amount in controversy, the court stated the man’s request for $250,000 appeared to be simple settlement posturing when compared to his accrued medical expenses. The court also found that the man’s purported ongoing medical needs did not support a finding that the amount in controversy requirement was met. Likewise, the court stated that the fact that no stipulation existed regarding the amount of damages the man expected to recover did not suggest the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Finally, the federal court said although awards from similar cases can assist a court in determining the amount in controversy, none of the cases offered as supporting evidence by the hotel suggested the injured man would likely recover more than $75,000. Since the hotel did not offer sufficient evidence to suggest the amount in controversy supported federal jurisdiction, the court remanded the man’s premises liability lawsuit to state court.

Panama City Federal Court Orders Department Store to Share Evidence in Slip and Fall Case: Sowell v. Target Corp.

Published on: June 2, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A federal court in Florida has refused to allow a department store to claim surveillance video footage of an individual’s slip and fall while on company property was protected from disclosure by the work product privilege. In Sowell v. Target Corp., a woman was purportedly hurt when she fell inside of a chain department store. Following her injury accident, the woman filed a lawsuit against the business and sought a digital copy of the store’s video footage of the incident as part of a discovery request. According to the retailer, all video footage at the company’s chain of stores is erased in the ordinary course of business after a limited time period. Instead of erasing the video, the store saved a copy of the woman’s fall after she reported it. Because of this, the store alleged that the video was prepared in anticipation of litigation and should not be entered into evidence due to the work product privilege.

Although items prepared for litigation in Florida are normally protected under the work product doctrine, anything created in the ordinary course of business is ordinarily discoverable in a lawsuit. According to the Northern District of Florida, the store’s surveillance videotape was not only responsive to the woman’s discovery request, it was created as a part of the chain’s routine business practice of monitoring employees and customers for theft and other potential issues.

Additionally, the court held that the business failed to demonstrate the video was created for any other reason or offer a valid justification for withholding it. Finally, the Florida federal court stated a delay in producing the video might place the injured woman at a disadvantage if store employees were deposed after reviewing the slip and fall tape. Since the department store’s video evidence of the woman’s injury accident was not privileged and withholding surveillance footage of the incident from her might place the woman at a disadvantage at trial, the Northern District of Florida ordered the business to share the film. Continue Reading ›

Establishing Constructive Knowledge in Florida

Published on: May 23, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, a man appealed a grant of summary judgment as to one of the causes of action in his slip and fall case. The case arose at a country club where the man was an invitee. There was a slippery substance on the dance floor and the man slipped on it. The club had allowed patrons to take drinks onto the dance floor.

The man filed suit alleging that the club had created the dangerous condition, or it knew or should have known of the condition because it was there long enough that it should have been discovered. He alleged that he experienced bodily and other injuries as a direct and proximate result of the club’s negligence.

The club answered and later filed for summary judgment. It argued that the plaintiff had to establish the club’s knowledge of the dangerous condition under Florida Statutes (2010) section 768.0755. It also argued that even though constructive knowledge could be established by showing the condition existed for so long the defendant should have known of the condition by exercising ordinary care, the plaintiff offered no evidence about how long the substance had been on the floor. Continue Reading ›

Slip and Fall at a Florida Gas Station

Published on: May 15, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, a couple appealed a final summary judgment in a travel center’s favor. They had also wanted to amend the complaint to include punitive damages, but were denied. The case arose when a man slipped on diesel fuel that had spilled at a service station. He sued on the grounds of negligent maintenance. The defendant argued that its employees had followed all the appropriate clean-up procedures in addition to the spill being open and obvious. The trial court agreed with the defense and granted summary judgment in its favor.

In slip and fall cases, the burden to prove there are no material issues of fact is more difficult than some other personal injury cases. A court may not grant summary judgment unless the defendant establishes that the absence of negligence was unequivocal or that it was the injury’s exclusive proximate cause.

The man who fell was considered a business invitee. In Florida, a business invitee is owed (1) a duty to employ reasonable care in ensuring the property’s conditions have been safely maintained and (2) duty to warn about dangers an owner has or should have had knowledge of, that are not known to the invitee. The man was a seasoned truck driver, plus he saw the spill right away when he came to the station and was aware of it because he had seen the trash can aisle blockage and had moved through the spill as he walked to the station store. Continue Reading ›