premises liability

Defective Staircase Lawsuit Requires Proof of Actual or Constructive Notice of Defect

June 21, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Landlords and other property owners have a duty of care to maintain their site in reasonably safe condition for those who enter lawfully. Landlords in particular have a statutory responsibility under F.S. 83.51 to maintain their premises, which involves compliance with all applicable building, housing and health codes and maintaining all structural components in good repair, capable of resisting normal forces, loads and plumbing. Florida law also requires the extermination of certain insects, including wood-destroying organisms.

Wood-destroying organisms, or more specifically, termites, were at the center of a recent defective staircase lawsuit in Rhode Island, where a woman fell through a stair board that had rotted through due to termites. She suffered a myriad of injuries and sued her landlord for damages. However, the trial court ruled in the landlord’s favor, finding plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence of actual or constructive notice of the defect. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.

We should point out that case law and statutes vary from state-to-state, but some of these same general provisions outlined in this case are applicable here in Florida too. Continue reading ›

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 ›

Janice H. v. 696 North Robertson – Club Liable for Bathroom Sex Assault

July 23, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Lack of security at a nightclub bathroom led to a brutal sexual assault, leading jurors to award a $5.4 million verdict against the nightclub. Now, that verdict has been affirmed by a California appellate court, illustrating the way in which a business can be held responsible for failure to protect patrons against third-party violent crimes.

In this case, Janice H. v. 696 North Robertson, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District, Division Three, Hollywood producer plaintiff, 37, had consumed several drinks at other nightclubs before entering this one to meet some friends, grab a drink of water and use the restroom.

However, when plaintiff entered the unisex bathroom, a man unknown to her – later identified as a staffer at the club – followed behind her and proceeded to sexually assault her. Continue reading ›

Griffin v. Haunted Hotel, Inc. – Assumption of Risk Doctrine

December 2, 2015 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

In personal injury cases, it’s essential to prove defendant owed a duty to plaintiff, that duty was breached and the breach caused the injury.

What many plaintiffs don’t realize is that they too owe a duty of care – to themselves. They have to take reasonable measures to protect themselves from known or knowable hazards, or else risk forfeiting the right to recover damages for it.

Thus, a key defense in these cases is the “assumption of risk.” The assumption of risk doctrine holds plaintiff knew of a dangerous condition and voluntarily exposed himself or herself to it.

This was the defense used in Griffin v. Haunted Hotel, Inc., before the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One. 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 ›