Premise Liability/Negligent Security

Concert Injury Spurs Premises Liability Lawsuit Against Venue, Artist

November 11, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Fans of rapper Travis Scott know that when they go to one of his concerts, it’s going to be high-energy. Not only will the bass be loud and the crowd riled, fans routinely form mosh pits, crowd surf and stage dive. But now, one of those fans has suffered serious injury after attending one of these events, and the question is to what extent was this an assumed risk and to what extent could the venue and Scott himself be liable.

The New York Times reports 23-year-old man became paralyzed and must now forever use a wheelchair after he was allegedly pushed form a third-story balcony and dragged on stage during one of the rapper’s performances this spring in Manhattan, New York. Plaintiff accuses Scott of negligence, as well as his manager, the concert promoter and the security company hired to provide protective services that night.

Representatives for Scott said they were conducting an internal investigation of the incident. A representative for the concert promoter declined to comment on the pending injury lawsuit. Continue reading ›

Florida Slip-and-Fall Injury Claimant Seeks $15,000 in Damages

August 10, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

A woman in Tarpon Springs has filed a personal injury lawsuit seeking at least $15,000 in damages for injuries suffered in an alleged slip-and-fall accident.

The incident occurred in a Wal-Mart store, which has been no stranger to such claims, given that it gets an estimated 138 million visitors every week. In fact, the company hires not just attorneys to handle cases as they arise, but also a claims management firm, with the sole aim of reducing the store’s liability in slip-and-fall and other negligence cases.

Such claims are harder to win in Florida, especially in recent years since legislators tightened plaintiff’s proof burden under F.S. 768.0755. In order to prevail in a Florida slip-and-fall lawsuit arising from a transitory foreign substance on the floor of a business establishment, plaintiffs need to prove the company had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and yet failed to take action – whether warning you about it or cleaning it up. Continue reading ›

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 ›

Negligent Security Alleged in Florida Homicide

October 3, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

A grieving Florida widower is suing the property management company as well as the security company for the gated community where he and his wife lived, claiming these entities were negligent in providing security to their community. The case was filed after the brutal stabbing death of plaintiff’s wife in a Davie home invasion robbery.

According to The Sun Sentinel, a 22-year-old man is accused of breaking into the couple’s home in September 2014, tying up and assaulting the 59-year-old victim, stabbing her to death and then leaving her body in the bathtub, where her adult son later discovered her. The accused is awaiting trial and faces the death penalty if convicted. He made headlines over the summer after he escaped from a Broward County courtroom and was on the run for six days. A number of others were later arrested in connection with assisting his escape.

While it may seem odd that anyone other than decedent’s killer could be held responsible for her death, a claim of negligent security asserts that a defendant had a duty to protect her and failed. 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 ›

Peterson v. Flare Fittings, Inc. – Post-Accident Waiver as a Release of Liability

October 29, 2015 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Liability waivers are not generally favored by Florida courts because they relieve one party of the obligation to use due care, and further shift the risk of injury to the party likely least equipped to take necessary precautions to avoid injury. For this reason, they are usually strictly construed against the party seeking to be relieved of that liability.

That said, releases of liability will be honored by the courts if it can be shown there was specific language that makes it clear the injured person fully appreciated the implications of that release.

In most of these cases, liability waivers are signed prior to a certain activity. For example, if you’ve ever ridden a rented jet ski, you probably had to sign a liability waiver. Similar releases are usually required for common Florida tourist activities like parasailing, boating or kayaking. However, most liability waivers don’t generally cover activity that occurs prior to signing that release. But that’s what defendants in Peterson v. Flare Fittings, Inc. et al. tried to do. Continue reading ›

Parking Lot Trip-and-Fall Can Lead to Land Owner Liability

October 4, 2015 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Property owners are responsible for maintaining the site in a way that ensures it is safe from unreasonable hazards for guests. When it comes to businesses and public buildings, that includes the parking lot area.

That means owners have a duty to fill cracks and holes in the walking surface. That means making sure any variations in walking surface height should either be gradual or there should be a warning to pedestrians about the potential hazard. It also means making sure there is adequate lighting, adequate security and regular inspections for areas or aspects that might pose a fall risk, such as oil, cracked wheel stops or other debris.

Failure to do this can result in litigation if someone is injured as a result, and the danger wasn’t obvious to the person who was hurt. Continue reading ›

Millard Mall Services v. Bolda – Slip-Fall Defendant Blocks Evidence Production

March 3, 2015 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

A woman allegedly slipped, fell and was seriously injured while shopping at the Sawgrass Mills Mall in South Florida. To recover damages for her injuries, she filed a lawsuit against mall services and ownership.

During the discovery phase of litigation, plaintiff sought certain documents from defendants pertaining to similar prior instances at that location. While trial court granted the request, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed in Millard Mall Services, Inc. v. Bolda, agreeing with defendants that the information was protected under the work product privilege.

Specifically, plaintiff sought production of:
–All records, incident reports or other written memorandum regarding other substantially similar acts and/or occurrences on defendant’s premises regarding slip-and-fall accidents over the three years prior;
–All documents regarding maintenance and cleaning the site during the month in which the incident occurred;
–All documents pertaining to the maintenance and cleaning of the site by an outside person/company/organization during that year.
Continue reading ›

Negligence Alone Insufficient for Compensation

January 31, 2015 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

In any personal injury lawsuit, there are some basic legal and factual requirements that must be met in order for the claim to succeed.

These requirements include establishment of:
–A duty owed by defendant to plaintiff;
–A breach of that duty;
–Proof that breach proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries;
–Compensable damages.

If any one of these elements goes wanting, the entire case will fail.
Continue reading ›