Premises Liability

Published on: October 18, 2016

Corporate Negligence Lawsuit Results in $1.3 Million Plaintiff’s Verdict Following Shopping Cart Injury

Earlier this month in Ohio, a woman recovered over $1.3 million for the injuries she sustained in an accident that occurred at a local supermarket. According to an industry news source reporting on the case, the woman was injured when another customer accidentally struck her with a motorized grocery cart. The plaintiff claimed that the supermarket chain was negligent for failing to provide adequate instructions for the customers who used the motorized carts.

During the discovery process of the woman’s lawsuit, it was uncovered that there were 119 other accidents in the same grocery store chain involving electric shopping carts. The woman used this fact to argue that the store’s management knew that there was a danger in providing the carts to customers, but it failed to do anything to remedy the situation. After hearing all the evidence, the jury returned the $1.3 million verdict, which included $125,000 in compensatory damages and another $1.2 million in punitive damages. If not for the evidence of the previous accidents showing the defendant company’s knowledge of the dangers associated with the carts, it is not likely that the woman would have recovered any punitive damages.

The Availability of Punitive Damages in Florida

Unlike compensatory damages, which are designed to make the plaintiff whole again, punitive damages are designed to deter the reckless conduct of the defendant that gave rise to the lawsuit. As a result, punitive damages in Florida can be significantly higher than compensatory damages in some cases.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 9, 2016

Plaintiff’s Premises Liability Case Arising from Grocery Store Slip-and-Fall Dismissed

By Cecere Santana, PA

Earlier this month, the Nebraska Supreme Court issued a written opinion in a premises liability case, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant grocery store because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that the defendant caused, or even knew of, the dangerous condition that precipitated her fall. As a result of the court’s decision in the case, Edwards v. Hy-Vee, the plaintiff will not be entitled to recover compensation for her injuries.

A Woman Slips and Falls on a Piece of Watermelon

Edwards slipped and fell on a piece of watermelon as she was leaving a grocery store that was owned and operated by Hy-Vee. After Edwards got up, she not only noticed that there was a watermelon seed stuck to the bottom of her shoe but also noticed that there was a store employee handing out free samples near the store’s exit.

After recovering from her injuries, Edwards filed a premises liability lawsuit against Hy-Vee, alleging that the store was negligent for either causing the dangerous condition to be present in the first place or failing to clean up the condition.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 21, 2016

Plaintiffs Must Submit Evidence of Each Element before Being Entitled to Compensation in Any Personal Injury Lawsuit

By Cecere Santana, PA

In most cases alleging that one party’s negligence caused another party’s injuries, the lawsuit is based on the legal theory of negligence. Before a negligence lawsuit is even permitted to go to trial, a judge must determine that a prima facie case of negligence exists. This is a question of whether, taking all evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has made out a bare-bones case. If not, the court is proper in dismissing the lawsuit before submitting the case to a jury.

In negligence cases, there are four elements that must be met: duty, breach, causation, and damages. In other words, a plaintiff must establish that the named defendant violated some duty of care that they owed the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was injured as a result of that breach. A plaintiff’s failure to submit proof of any of these elements can result in the court dismissing the case at the summary judgment stage. This is exactly what happened to a husband and wife who sued a local park for damages after the husband injured himself while leaning on a fence.

The Facts of the Case

In the case of Wheeling Park Commission v. Dattoli, the plaintiffs were a couple who were attending a concert at Wheeling Park. The couple arrived too late to find seating for the event, so they ended up standing at the top of a hill near a fence. As the night went on, Mr. Dattoli looked for a place to take some of the weight off his legs, and he leaned against the nearby split-rail fence. However, as he did so, the fence collapsed, sending Mr. Dattoli down the hill. As a result, he injured his shoulder.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 25, 2016

Little League Association Found Not To Be Liable for Injury Occurring on Baseball Field

By Cecere Santana, PA

Earlier this month, another state’s supreme court issued a written opinion in a case brought by a parent injured while attending her son’s little league baseball game. The case was brought by the parent against the little league association, claiming that the association was negligent for failing to maintain the field. The court ultimately dismissed the case against the association, based on the court’s determination that the association did not owe the plaintiff a duty to keep the field safe.

Carlson v. Towne of South Kingstown: The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the mother of a boy who was competing in a baseball game organized by the defendant. The defendant, however, did not own the field. The injury occurred shortly after the game was over, between the dugout and right field. The plaintiff was walking out to meet her son when she stepped in a divot in the grass, breaking her leg in three places. The woman filed a lawsuit against the little league association, as well as the town. At issue in this case was the lawsuit against the little league association only.

After pre-trial discovery was complete, the association asked the court to dismiss the case. The association argued that since it did not own the field, it did not have a duty to inspect and maintain it prior to using it. The lower court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the case. The plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →