The accident occurred in December 2015. This being South Florida, there was no ice or snow on the ground. In her personal injury complaint, plaintiff alleged she was had left her apartment to go the building mailroom to check to see if she had any mail waiting in her box.

After she checked her mail, she started walking directly back to her apartment. However, as she was walking across a grassy area, her foot landed in what she called a “depression” in the grass, causing her to lose balance and fall to the ground.

When she hit the ground in this Fort Lauderdale slip-and-fall accident, she injured herself badly. According to her complaint, she suffered fractured bones, cuts, and what she called permanent disfigurement. She also alleged various other types of damages, including pain and suffering, mental anguish, lost wages, and medical bills.

The basis of her allegations is that the apartment complex owner and its management failed to warn tenants of a known dangerous condition, and also failed to maintain the property in a way that is reasonable so as to prevent foreseeable injury to foreseeable persons and property. These are the two basic claims in a premises liability lawsuit, and a slip-and-fall case is essentially always a premises liability action.

In this particular case, the plaintiff has a requested a trial by jury where she has asked for attorney’s fees, damages, court costs, and pre-and post- judgment interest. However, it should be noted that the defendant will likely defend this action, as they have not already settled the matter. Therefore, they are legally liable for plaintiff’s injuries, both physical and mental, unless and until the jury makes a finding in favor in plaintiff. Because this is a civil personal injury lawsuit, there is a burned of proof standard known as a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the jury must believe it is more than not, after hearing all of the evidence, that the plaintiff’s claims are true. In some cases, the jury can return a verdict that is the same with respect to all claims, such as all for plaintiff or all for defendant, and in some cases, the jury will deliver what is known as a split verdict.

With a split verdict, the jury will find for the plaintiff on some claims and find for the defendant on others. This can have an effect on the damages. For example, some claims will allow for punitive damages and others will not. Punitive damages are somewhat rare in our legal system but allow for much higher awards. This is also the reason there are sometimes seemingly redundant claims. This is allowed, so long as the claims are not purely duplicative.

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

Additional Resources:

Coral Springs tenant alleges grassy area caused fall, June 5, 2017, By Jenie Mallari-Torres, Florida Record

More Blog Entries:

Manufacturers Recall Defective Bikes for Safety Hazards, March 29, 2017, Motorcycle Accident Lawyer Blog

However, that provision was later repealed in 2010 and replaced with F.S. 768.0755, which omitted the “mode of operation” language completely, which defendants have argued means that state courts don’t recognize it anymore. Specifically, they’ll cite the 2015 ruling in Woodman v. Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, decided by the U.S. District Court of for the Middle District of Florida, which granted a defense motion to strike a claim citing negligent mode of operation on the grounds it could not longer serve as a basis for proving premises liability. Still, the state supreme court hasn’t ruled on it as of yet, and plaintiffs continue to assert it as a cause of action in injury complaints, although there is generally no getting around F.S. 768.0755 and the requirement to prove defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition.

Other state courts continue to wrestle with this issue too. Recently in Rhode Island, the state high court weighed a case that involved a woman who slipped on oil and cucumber near a self-serve salad bar section in a grocery store, causing her to suffer serious personal injury.

According to court records, plaintiff entered the store around 2 p.m. and upon leaving the meat department, took a few steps and slipped on the debris near the salad bar. She never saw a warning sign and testified there were no employees in the area and no one immediately came to her aid after she fell. The store told her there was no one on staff to help her with an incident report.

She was taken to a nearby hospital, where x-rays revealed no broken bones. There were however soft tissue injuries and numerous tears in her knee and bulging discs. Plaintiff sued for premises liability, seeking compensation for her injuries.

At trial, the manager was asked whether spills occurred often at the salad bar, to which he answered no. He did say however, there were occasional spills, but that no particular employee was assigned to monitor the area. However, deli employees could see the area and whether it needed to be cleaned, and a chef would come around every so often to see if it needed refilled. There were no protective materials or mats to absorb spills and there were no warnings cautioning customers about possible spills.

After all the evidence had been presented, defense moved for summary judgment, arguing that while it wasn’t in dispute that plaintiff fell on oil and cucumber from the salad bar, there was no evidence of actual or constructive notice to the store or anyone employed there, which would have determined whether the store had a reasonable amount of time to clean it up. Plaintiffs moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing the store lacked safety policies and the mode of operation rendered a constant danger.

Trial judge rejected plaintiff’s motion, but reserved judgment on defense motion and the case went to the jury, which was instructed on the law, including the requirement to keep the area in reasonably safe condition for food and grocery shopping. The court did not advise jurors on the theory of negligent operation – but plaintiff didn’t object to that.

Jurors decided in favor of defendant.

Upon appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, finding the trial court didn’t err in refusing plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and there was no mistake in the failure to instruct jurors on the mode of operation because the plaintiff never objected to it. The court declined to weigh the merit’s of plaintiff’s assertion that the mode of operation theory should be adopted in light of her circumstances.

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

Additional Resources:

Bates-Bridgmon v. Heong’s Market, Inc., Jan. 15, 2017, Rhode Island Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Alleges Restaurant Negligent in Triple Murder, Jan. 14, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog