In short, the 3rd DCA held yes, they could – or at least part of it.

It comes down to whether the duties a defendant owed to the plaintiff were non-delegable, meaning they can’t be pawned off on another person or entity by contract.

What is joint and several liability?

Joint and several liability is a legal doctrine that allows those who have been injured by another’s negligence to fully recover those damages where full recovery might otherwise be unavailable. Typically, everyone in a Florida injury case is responsible for his or her own portion of damages. That means if there are three defendants, each deemed 33 percent responsible, each should only have to pay their own 33 percent share of the plaintiff’s total damages. But sometimes, at-fault parties don’t have the means to cover damages. Joint and several liability allows a plaintiff to hold one defendant responsible to cover another’s share of the damages.

However, as our Fort Lauderdale injury lawyers can explain, the Florida legislature abolished joint and several liability in Florida in 2006. The push to do so began at least in part with the 1987 Florida Supreme Court ruling in Walt Disney World v. Wood. In that case, plaintiff was injured at a grand prix attraction at the park when her fiance rammed from the rear the vehicle she’d been driving. She filed a lawsuit against Disney, which in turn sought contribution from the fiance. Jurors determined plaintiff was 14 percent comparatively at-fault, her fiance was 85 percent at-fault and Disney was 1 percent at-fault. Her total damages were assessed at $75,000. The court ruled that because of the doctrine of joint and several liability, Disney could be responsible for 86 percent of the damages. Disney appealed, but the verdict was affirmed.

The Florida statute on joint and several liability has been modified numerous times. Today, for the most part, a defendant who is liable is only going to pay his or her own portion of damages. But there are sometimes exceptions. This is what we saw recently in the case of Walters v. Beach Club Villas Condominium, Inc.

Joint Liability in Florida Premises Liability Lawsuit

In the Walters case, plaintiff attended a party hosted by friends who were owners of a beach condo. The portion of the boat dock directly behind her friends’ home was in good condition, but an adjacent portion was not. Plaintiff ended up stepping on a defective portion of the dock, falling and becoming seriously injured.

She sued the property owners, the condo complex and the repair company for premises liability.

In general, property owners/occupiers owe invitees the duty of using reasonable care in maintaining the property in reasonably safe condition and to warn of latent/concealed dangers that are or should be known to the owner that aren’t known to the invitee or cannot be discovered just by exercising due care. These duties are “non-delegable,” meaning one who owes such a duty can’t absolve themselves of it by contracting it out to another party. The condo complex’s duty went even further per the club’s own internal declarations, which adopted significant portions of the Florida Condominium Act, requiring (in part) that condo associations keep up common areas – and the dock was specifically listed as a common area. That declaration, the trial court held, imposed an additional duty on the condo complex – one that couldn’t be delegated out to any other party.

The condo complex argued the fault was on the party hosts for failing to warn plaintiff of the unsafe condition of the dock, contributing to her fall and personal injuries. The dock repair company alleged comparative fault, as well as third parties.

Jurors returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor, finding the beach club 15 percent liable, the dock repair company 25 percent liable and the party hosts 50 percent liable. She herself was deemed 10 percent at-fault. The court, however, declined to impose joint and several liability on the condo complex.

The appellate court reversed with respect to the contractor, but not the party hosts. The court cited several instances of case law wherein the a property owner can be held jointly and severally liable for the negligence attributed to a contractor when the property owner owes a non-delegable duty of care to the plaintiff – even if the contractor was deemed partially or wholly at-fault.

The fact that the condo owner hired a contractor to repair the dock didn’t negate its own nondelegable duty to keep the property in reasonably good condition. Thus, they could be held jointly and severally liable for the contractor’s portion of damages. However, the condo owner would not be liable for the hosts’ portion because they owed a separate duty to warn plaintiff of the possible danger. That makes the condo complex owner and the party hosts joint tortfeasors, but the condo complex couldn’t be held liable for their damages.

Call Fort Lauderdale Probate Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Walters v. Beach Club Villas Condominium, Inc., Feb. 26, 2020, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal

More Blog Entries:

When Do I Need a Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer? June 15, 2020, Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog

There is often one big exception: If a charge is made or usually made for entering the park or a certain area or if there is any commercial or other activity that profits from patronage of the general public on the park land, then liability may become an issue.

This was reportedly the situation for an alleged personal injury at a park in Arizona. Here, the Arizona Supreme Court reversed an earlier summary judgment in a personal injury lawsuit favoring a defendant company with rights to an area of a public park where a patron fell and was injured.more

According to court records, the agreement the company had with the park went back 25 years, with so called “Picnic Island” and a nearby pinata area patrolled, inspected, prepared, groomed and maintained by the company. The company never maintained exclusive rights to the area, to which the public otherwise had access.

Plaintiff had purchased a $300 package from defendant to host her daughter’s birthday party, which included all-day rides within that area, plus a pavilion reservation. Customers were also allowed to bring a pinata if they broke it outside the fenced in area, at a tree outfitted specifically for this purpose. An employee from the company specifically raised and lowered the pinata for partygoers trying to break it.

While walking through the area where the pinata was set up, plaintiff fell in a sprinkler-head divot that was covered by grass, injuring her arm and breaking her ankle.

Plaintiff sued defendant company, alleging premises liability. Defendant asserted recreational immunity, noting that plaintiff was a recreational user of the property and that the company was immune as a “manager” of the site under the statute.

The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the appellate court affirmed, but the state supreme court reversed. Although the city is entitled to immunity under the statute, the private company is not, the court held.

The company had no authority to open or close the area for recreational use purposes. It’s true that it patrolled, maintained, inspected, prepared and groomed the area, but the relationship with the city didn’t confer managerial status to the company that would entitle it to the same immunity the city enjoys under the recreational use statute. It merely maintains the pinata area and pays the city a fee. Thus, the company is an independent contractor (as opposed to a licensee or lessee). Plus, the company collects a payment for its services; it’s not opening this section of land (which it doesn’t have authority to do anyway) for free to the public.

The bottom line for park-goers in Florida is that despite the recreational use statute, there may be situations in which you are entitled to collect personal injury damages from areas that are otherwise free and open to the public for recreational purposes.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Normandin v. Encanto Adventures, LLC, May 17, 2019, Arizona Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Helmeted Cyclists Still Suffer Injury in Fort Lauderdale Bicycle Accident, April 18, 2019, Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Attorney Blog

This is the allegation in a recent wrongful death lawsuit filed against Universal Studios Orlando by the family of a Guatemalan man who suffered a fatal heart attack in 2016 shortly after exiting a suspense-filled roller coaster-type ride featuring animatronics and 3D screens, the rider seated in a “truck” as they speed through the scenes of the recent King Kong films. Decedent, a man in his 50s, reportedly had prior heart problems – a risk factor outlined in prominent warning signs just before riders board. However, decedent was unable to read those warnings because they were written entirely in English, while he understood only Spanish.

His daughter, executive of his estate, relayed in her complaint that her father told his family he didn’t feel well after getting off the right. His wife opined maybe he had an upset stomach. He decided to sit out the next ride on a nearby bench while his wife and son boarded another ride. By they time they returned to him, he’d collapsed. After an alleged delay in rendering aid, crews transported the man from the park to a hospital, where he later died of a heart attack, according to the lawsuit.

As our Fort Lauderdale injury attorneys can explain, even though the man had a pre-existing heart condition and even if a heart attack may have been inevitable at some point, Universal could bear some liability if the ride exacerbated the man’s condition, the park/ ride manufacturer knew of the possibility and failed to adequately warn him.

We know the park/ ride manufacturer was aware of the potential danger because the sign posted in English expressly stated – at the very top – those with heart conditions and abnormal blood pressure should not ride. In a bold red banner at the top of the sign were the words, “Failure to follow posted guidelines may result in serious injury…”

Plaintiff’s attorneys will now need to answer whether the ride played a role in his heart attack and whether the park warned him adequate?

What Makes a Theme Park Ride Warning Adequate?

The question of whether the park had a responsibility to translate the warning to Spanish (or any other language) depends on the likelihood the park was going to be receiving Spanish-only guests.

There is ample evidence Florida theme parks like Universal, Disney and others specifically target international visitors with their marketing, with Spanish language advertisements and an easy “translate to Spanish” feature on their website for booking. They WANT those visitors at their parks and hotels. When they accept those international visitors (some 2 million visitors come to Orlando annually just from Latin American countries), they have a responsibility to make sure warnings are communicated to those guests.

Our Fort Lauderdale amusement park accident attorneys know there is likely little argument the park could make that such warning signs at ride entrances would be unreasonable. Prior cases determining warnings or disclosures be printed in all languages would really be specific to those matters because ultimately, the court will decide what is both reasonable and prudent for that individual defendant. However, it does not seem such a request would be unreasonable for a large Florida theme park, given that these are tourism meccas.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Lawsuit: Universal Orlando negligent in visitor’s death for warning signs only in English, Dec. 30, 2018, By David Oliver, USA Today

More Blog Entries:

Florida Injury Lawsuits and Social Media: Think Before you Post, Nov. 30, 2018, Florida Amusement Park Injury Attorney Blog

It can be a powerful defense, and one our personal injury attorneys in Fort Lauderdale are committed to challenging head-on. We recognize there may be numerous exceptions to the open-and-obvious doctrine, including:

• Landowner knew people would likely be hurt even if they were aware of it;
• Negligence per se, which involves violation of a health or safety statute, for which landowner could be liable regardless of the awareness or actions of the injured party.

more

If you’re injured on business property in South Florida, it’s important to consult with an injury lawyer who can help you ascertain the viability of your claim and brainstorm on effective challenges to likely defenses.

In a recent premises liability lawsuit weighed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, justices ruled in favor of defendant, based on the open and obvious doctrine defense.

According to court records, the defendant is the owner of a chain of home improvement stores located in the Midwest, with the one in question being in Illinois. Plaintiff and his adult son were at this store one evening in January 2014 to buy rolled insulation. It wasn’t the first time plaintiff had been to this store, and in fact he went there monthly to buy home improvement supplies for his personal use. Plaintiff bought 21 rolls of insulation inside the store and the cashier gave him a receipt and instructed him to bring his vehicle around to the self-service warehouse to load his purchase into his van.

Near the entrance of this warehouse, a large sign warned against customers cutting bandings, opening packages or pulling or climbing on packages, directing them instead to ask for assistance. Plaintiff did not see any employees inside the warehouse, but did understand he could ask for help if needed. Plaintiff saw that one of the stacks of insulation he purchased was not straight and was leaning to the right. He noted it seemed too high and it was “pretty obvious” that the stack was “unstable.” For this reason, he told his son to “keep an eye” on that particular stack. However, he did not seek help from store employees. Instead, he said he used extra caution in loading, which he and his son did for the next 15 minutes. During that time, neither he nor his son touched the stack. As they were loading the final bales, the leaning stack fell, knocking plaintiff to the ground and reportedly causing personal injury to his shoulder.

Plaintiff and his son immediately returned to the store and notified the front office of the injury. Two employees told the manager they heard the insulation stack fall, but that they were never asked for help.

The following year, plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the store, alleging negligence on the basis of premises liability. After discovery was completed, trial court granted summary judgment to defendant, finding the store didn’t owe a legal duty to plaintiff because the leaning stack of insulation that fell was open and obvious, and that to impose a duty would be “excessively onerous” based on the circumstances.

The appellate court affirmed, noting both plaintiff and his son observed the stack to be “obviously” leaning, and further that the risk of this would be apparent to a reasonable person.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Dunn v. Menard, Inc., Jan. 29, 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

More Blog Entries:

Enforceable Florida Texting Ban Mulled by State Legislators, Jan. 21, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Attorney Blog

However, as noted in the 1952 Florida Supreme Court case of Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Orlando, the business may assume that invitees will perceive conditions that are obvious upon the ordinary use of his or her own senses. Restated another way, there is no duty by the business to warn patrons of open and obvious conditions. So a business needs to warn about concealed dangers that are known or should be known to the owner and are unknown to the patron and can’t be discovered through the exercise of due care. The business also needs to use ordinary care in maintaining its property in reasonably safe condition.

These standards were all reviewed in a recent case before Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal, which considered the open and obvious doctrine defense in a trip-and-fall injury lawsuit against a Bay County grocery store. Before the court was a request to consider whether summary judgment in favor of defendant was appropriate when the injured man observed the dangerous condition, but failed to step around the obstacle.

Plaintiff in this case went to the grocery store to make a purchase and also to gather some empty boxes. In the course of this errand, he made four trips in and out of the business. The first time in, he made his purchase and took those items to his vehicle. He then made three additional trips to gather empty boxes and take them back to his vehicle.

At the same time, an employee of a beer supplier was delivering a shipment of beer. The product was stacked on a pallet between the store’s entrance/ exit doors. On the third trip leaving the store, plaintiff said he saw the pallet, but tripped over it, causing him to suffer personal injury.

Plaintiff later filed a trip-and-fall injury lawsuit against the grocery store for being negligent in failing to warn of the dangerous condition and for not ensuring the sidewalk was safe to cross.

During the deposition phase, plaintiff stated he didn’t see the empty pallet until his last trip. Further, he alleged it wasn’t actually the pallet he’d tripped on, but rather several prongs that were sticking out from underneath the pallet.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgement, which the trial court granted. The court ruled the condition was so open and obvious and ordinary that as a matter of law, it was not inherently dangerous. That meant defendant could not be liable.

On appeal, plaintiff argued the trial court erred in reaching this conclusion.

However, the appellate panel noted plaintiff admitted that he saw the empty pallet, took several steps and then tripped over it. The surveillance video of the incident reportedly refuted the allegation that he’d tripped over the prongs, rather than the pallet itself. Further, plaintiff had changed his course to avoid the pallet the first three times he walked past it. Thus, the condition was open and obvious and plaintiff’s injuries were not compensable.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Brookie v. Winn-Dixie Stores Inc., April 4, 2017, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal

More Blog Entries:

Property Owner Liability for Dangerous Road Conditions, March 7, 2017, Broward Premises Liability Attorney Blog

There have been cases in which the lack of management can result in injuries. For example, if there are slippery floors, broken stairwells or damaged handrails, this could result in a serious fall. Where doors and windows aren’t equipped with locks or other security features, this could make residents and guests vulnerable to crime.

In these cases, where injury results, the terms of the lease agreement isn’t the only recourse Florida tenants have.

There may be grounds for a premises liability lawsuit. Tenant would need to prove landlord breached a duty of care owed and as a result, tenant suffered a compensable injury. Florida residents are also protected under the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, codified in Chapter 83 of Florida Statutes. When an injury results from a violation of these statutes, it can only serve to make the case stronger. Included in landlord responsibilities are ensuring the property is up to health codes, checking to ensure property is in reasonable working condition and is reasonably maintained, addressing concerns of animals on the property and ensure the property is reasonably secure.

Still, these cases can be challenging, which is why it’s important to have an experienced attorney.

All states have their own landlord-tenant laws and interpretation of premises liability. Recently, the Rhode Island Supreme Court took on these issues in Roma v. Moreira. According to court records, the case began with a plaintiff fall.

He fell down the stairs at his residence and suffered injury as a result. Plaintiff and his wife filed a lawsuit alleging failure to maintain the premises in a good, clean and safe condition. Plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries, while his wife alleged loss of consortium.

Two days into a three-day trial, plaintiff’s lead counsel told the court that his co-counsel overheard one juror saying to another that if plaintiff could survive cancer, he could survive this. Plaintiff was in fact a cancer survivor, though it wasn’t clear how jurors would have known this.

Jurors were questioned by the judge and denied having ever had such a conversation, saying the only thing they talked about with each other was food and a request for gum. Other jurors insisted they had heard no such conversation. The judge declined to remove those jurors.

Jurors ultimately delivered a verdict in favor of defendant landlord.

Plaintiff appealed, alleging trial court erred in refusing to declare a mistrial due to juror misconduct. However, a review by the state supreme court resulted in justices concluding trial judge had acted appropriately in questioning the two jurors in camera before reaching her conclusion.

Plaintiff did not otherwise challenge the merits of the case.

This type of issue could arise in practically any type of litigation where jurors are involved.

Although it is unclear from the state supreme court record the exact nature of the alleged stairway defect that resulted in plaintiff injuries, we can say that landlords are responsible to ensure stairs are safe. Generally, plaintiffs injured on a stairway could successfully sue a landlord if it could be proven:

• Landlord had a duty to keep the stairs in good condition;
• Stairs were not in good condition;
• It as foreseeable broken stairs would cause an accident;
• A defect in the stairs directly caused injury to plaintiff.

If you have questions about an injury suffered on someone else’s property, contact our offices today to learn more about how we can help.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Roma v. Moreira, Nov. 13, 2015, Rhode Island Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Left Turn Motorcycle Accident Kills 29-Year-Old Physician Assistant, Nov. 20, 2015, Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Lawyer Blog