Fort Myers slip-and-fall

Piotrowski v. Menard, Inc. – Parking Lot Fall Highlights Injury Case Proof Standards

December 16, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Holiday shopping is seen by some as an enjoyable way to get into the seasonal spirit. Others view it as more of a stressful chore. But in both cases, it should be safe. Unfortunately, our Fort Myers injury attorneys have seen too many cases of holiday shoppers suffering some type of injury due to a failure by property owners, managers or employees to keep the site free of unreasonable hazards.

These dangers might include:

Perilously-stacked merchandise;
Slippery floors;
Poorly illuminated parking lots;
Broken stairs;
Uneven sidewalks;
Inadequate security;
Cluttered aisles.

These incidents can result in serious – and sometimes disabling – injuries to shoppers. Yes, customers do have a responsibility to be on the lookout for obvious dangers and to avoid them using reasonable care. But as part of a legal classification of visitors known as “business invitees,” shoppers are owed the highest duty of care under the law. That means property owners must not only avoid creating hazards and address them when they become known, but also to regularly inspect the site for them. Continue reading ›

Slip-and-Fall Head Injury in Outdoor Plant Sales Area Leads to Lawsuit

April 21, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

A woman was shopping for plants on a steamy summer afternoon in Las Vegas three years ago when she slipped and fell on a puddle of water. Upon falling, she smacked her head on the concrete floor of the outdoor facility.

She suffered serious injuries, including a fractured skull and traumatic brain injury. She is no longer able to smell or taste. For the rest of her life, these are pleasures the mother-of-three will no longer derive.

Now, she is seeking compensatory and punitive damages from the store, arguing her slip-and-fall injury was foreseeable and preventable and the store owed a duty to make the site safe for customers. In order to succeed in a claim for punitive damages, one needs to show not only was defendant negligent, but that defendant was grossly negligent or displayed wanton or reckless disregard for the safety and well-being of others. Here, plaintiffs argue this is proven based on the fact there were 33 prior incidents at other stores within the chain in which people slipped and fell in the outdoor garden sales area. Continue reading ›

Pro Tennis Player Sues for Injuries in Slip-and-Fall

November 5, 2015 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Athletes put their bodies through punishing routines in order to ready themselves for competitions. They know they must be in top physical shape in order to win. They may even expect to get hurt in the course of competing. But when an injury happens off the field or court, it can result in serious consequences not only to their health, but their livelihood.

That’s what’s being alleged by pro-tennis player Eugenie Bouchard, who has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Tennis Association and the U.S.T.A. Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in connection with a slip-and-fall she suffered in a physical therapy room. Bouchard’s lawsuit was filed little more than a month after winning her final match at the U.S. Open.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleges she fell as a result of coming in contact with a slippery, foreign and dangerous substance on the tile floor of a physical therapy room operated by defendants. Continue reading ›

Carter v. Bullitt Host, LLC – Slip-and-Fall Liability and Open Obvious Doctrine

October 23, 2015 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

One key defense used in the tort action of slip-and-fall premises liability is the “open and obvious doctrine.” While property owners have a duty to maintain the site to be reasonably safe to guests, those guests also have a duty to avoid dangers that are glaringly open and obvious.

However, the defense isn’t absolute. Florida courts will apply the doctrine of comparative fault – that is, the percentage of fault held by the injured party – to determine whether damages should be reduced accordingly. Many other state courts do the same.

In the recent case of Carter v. Bullitt Host, LLC, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed an earlier grant of summary judgment favoring defendant in a slip-and-fall case, finding the lower courts failed to properly apply the comparative fault doctrine in a slip-and-fall lawsuit wherein the slippery condition was naturally-occurring and the hazard was deemed open and obvious. Rather than determine what percentage of fault plaintiff had in the case (potentially reducing damages), the lower courts simply rejected his claim outright. The state high court held that was improper, and a jury should decide the percentage of fault apportioned to each party for the accident and injury. Continue reading ›