Premises Liability Category Archives — South Florida Injury Attorneys Blog Published by South Florida Injury Lawyers

October 16, 2023

Can a Drunk Person Sue for a Slip and Fall Accident in Florida?

Slip and fall accidents can happen to anyone, regardless of their state of sobriety. But what happens when the person involved in the accident is intoxicated? Can they still sue for their injuries? In Florida, the answer is yes.

However, there are some important factors and challenges to consider before diving into a legal battle. From comparative negligence to public perception, this blog post will explore whether drunk people can successfully pursue a slip and fall lawsuit in the Sunshine State. So, grab a cup of coffee (or just stick with water) as we delve into this intriguing topic!

Comparative Negligence

May 19, 2023

Pursuing Legal Action for Gym-Related Injuries in Florida

by Frankl Kominsky Injury Lawyers

Physical activity is a significant aspect of a healthy lifestyle. Most Floridians hit the gym for a good workout multiple times a week. While exercising has various health benefits, it can also be risky if you fail to take the proper safety measures. Many people suffer injuries while working out at their local gym or fitness center in Florida.

If you’ve sustained injuries because of another party’s negligence, pursuing legal action may be your best course of action. A Pompano Beach personal injury lawyer can help you seek compensation for your injuries. Read on to explore what steps you can take to seek compensation for your pain and suffering caused by gym-related injuries in Florida.

What Is a Gym-Related Injury?

December 29, 2022

When To Hire Attorney for Property Damage Claim

by Frankl Kominsky Injury Lawyers

If you’ve experienced property damage in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, you may wonder when it’s time to hire an attorney. Property damage claims can be complicated, and if the process is mishandled, you may not be able to get the compensation you deserve.

Knowing when to hire an attorney can differentiate between a successful and a failed claim. In this blog post, we’ll discuss when hiring an attorney for a property damage claim in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, is best. Read on to learn more about when to seek legal help and what you can expect from the process.

If The Insurance Company Denies Your Claim

October 6, 2022

Top 11 Factors That Could Affect Your Slip and Fall Case

by Frankl Kominsky Injury Lawyers

From time to time, people are injured from slip and fall accidents. However, slip and fall accidents are regular occurrences that can happen anywhere and anytime to anyone, including the young, elderly, and healthy.

The injuries after the accident can vary from head trauma and broken bones to bruises. Unfortunately, when accidents like this happen, the victim could face years of pain, financial difficulties, and mental anguish.

Sometimes, people assume that the slipping and falling incident is their fault. However, this is sometimes not the case, as property owners, landlords, and business owners may be responsible.

February 24, 2021

Court Addresses How Plaintiffs Must Establish Ordinary Negligence in Recent Personal Injury Lawsuit

by Frankl Kominsky Injury Lawyers

Recently, an appeals court issued an opinion in a Florida negligence lawsuit stemming from injuries an attorney suffered while visiting a county jail client. As the attorney passed through a security gate at the jail, an inside gate closed on her. The defendants argued that neither the County nor the corrections officer controlling the gate acted negligently. Instead, the defendant argued that the plaintiff tripped on a sensor or the gate malfunctioned. The defendants contended that the malfunction was unrelated to any negligence on their part.

The plaintiff presented testimony explaining how the gates operate and how an officer manually opens the gate to allow visitors to pass through. The officer in charge of the gate on the day of the incident testified that he did not press any buttons while the plaintiff was stepping through. Further, he testified that a safety sensor should have halted the gate. However, the plaintiff failed to present evidence explaining whether a malfunction could cause the gate to close unexpectedly.

Florida’s res ipsa loquitur doctrine, provides injury victims with a “common-sense” inference of negligence where there is a lack of direct proof. In Latin, res ipsa loquitur means “the thing speaks for itself.” However, this only applies when there are other facts consistent with negligence. Courts permit this instruction when a plaintiff establishes that the harmful instrumentality was under the defendant’s exclusive control. Essentially, a plaintiff must meet the initial burden establishing probable negligence. Plaintiffs must understand that the doctrine does not require them to eliminate all possible causes of an accident. Instead, they must merely show that a reasonable person could find that it is more likely than not that negligence caused the accident.

September 15, 2020

Florida Court Finds Hotel Did Not Owe Guest a Duty of Care in Recent Wrongful Death Case

by Frankl Kominsky Injury Lawyers

Property owners owe guests a duty to ensure that their property is reasonably safe. The extent of the duty a landowner owes to a guest, however, will depend on the reason for the guest’s visit. Under Florida slip and fall law, invitees are owed the greatest duty, while trespassers are owed the lowest duty. Licensees occupy a middle ground.

Florida law distinguishes between public invitees and business invitees. A public invitee is a guest who is present on property that is generally open to the public for non-business reasons. A visitor at a public park is an example of a public invitee. A business invitee, on the other hand, is someone who is present on another’s property for some business purpose. A common example of a business invitee is a customer at a grocery store. Business invitees and public invitees are both owed the same duty by landowners. However, a public invitee may need to deal with sovereign immunity issues when pursuing a claim for compensation. Of course, to successfully bring a Florida premises liability lawsuit, the injured party must be able to show that the landowner owed them a duty, and that the landowner violated that duty.

In a recent Florida court of appeals decision, a plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of the deceased against a Florida hotel and resort following a golf cart accident that resulted in the individual’s death. The defendant hotel provided a complimentary golf cart service to transport guests around its property and on its grounds. The golf cart was not allowed to travel on roads beyond the hotel grounds, but it could drop passengers off who could then cross a highway on foot.

November 20, 2019

Appellate Court Issues Ruling in Florida Car Insurance Coverage Dispute

by Frankl Kominsky Injury Lawyers

Recently, an appellate court addressed whether a Florida plaintiff may recover uninsured motorist benefits after she suffered injuries at a mobile gym. According to the court’s opinion, the defendant ran a mobile gym out of his truck and trained the plaintiff for several years. To power the machines and equipment, the defendant plugged the mobile gym’s generator into an outlet at the woman’s home. This arrangement worked well until the woman suffered permanent injuries during one of her sessions. The woman settled negligence claims with the mobile gym owner and her personal trainer. However, she also filed an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim (UIM) with her insurance company. The insurance company claimed that its UIM policy does not apply to motor vehicles such as a mobile gym. Ultimately, the trial court found in the insurance company’s favor, and the woman appealed the ruling.

Car insurance coverage is an integral part of car ownership, and can protect motorists from disastrous financial burdens if they are involved in an accident. However, the Insurance Research Council estimates that over 12% of drivers do not have car insurance coverage. When a driver is involved in a Florida car accident with a UIM driver, they may face challenges in trying to recover for their damages. To address this inherent unfairness, many car insurance companies offer their policyholders UIM coverage. This protects drivers from high out-of-pocket costs if they are a victim of a hit-and-run or an accident with a negligent UIM.

When a Florida driver files a UIM claim with their insurance company, the company effectively steps into the shoes of the negligent driver. In many instances, the policy holder’s relationship with their insurance provider becomes adversarial, and claimants need to fight for their benefits.

January 9, 2019

Court Determines Liability Release Waiver Did Not Prevent Plaintiff’s Claim in Recent Florida Wrongful Death Case

by Frankl Kominsky Injury Lawyers

Last month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a Florida wrongful death case discussing the permissible scope of a liability release waiver and whether such a waiver can prevent a plaintiff from pursuing a claim of gross negligence against a defendant. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s case should proceed because the waiver signed by the plaintiff did not include the waiver of claims based on the defendant’s gross negligence.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was killed when she was run over by a tow-truck on the Daytona International Speedway. Apparently, the plaintiff was standing in a restricted-access area when two employees of the raceway instructed the tow-truck driver to back the truck into the restricted area. As the truck was backing up, it ran over the plaintiff.

Before the plaintiff entered the raceway, she signed a release and waiver of liability. The waiver stated that the plaintiff agreed to “release, waive and discharge” the defendant “for any and all loss or damage” resulting in injury or death. The agreement stated that it applied to “all acts of negligence.”

August 29, 2018

Court Discusses Florida’s Medical Malpractice Notice Requirement in Recent Case, Determining Plaintiff’s Case Need Not Comply

by Frankl Kominsky Injury Lawyers

In a recent opinion, a state appellate court discussed the notice requirements of a Florida medical malpractice lawsuit. That presented a situation in which a plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a healthcare provider raising claims that the plaintiff believed was not based on a theory of medical malpractice. Thus, the plaintiff did not take the extra steps to comply with the state’s notice requirements for medical malpractice lawsuits.

The court had to decide if the case should be dismissed based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the additional notice requirements. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not need to comply with the additional requirements because the plaintiff’s lawsuit was brought under a traditional theory of negligence and not considered a medical malpractice case.

Florida Statutes section 766.106 – Florida’s Medical Malpractice Notice Provision

Florida lawmakers have made it so all Florida medical malpractice plaintiffs must comply with additional requirements in order for their case to be properly heard. These additional requirements can be burdensome, however, if they are not followed a plaintiff’s case may be dismissed without the merits of the case ever being heard.

December 13, 2017

Florida Court Discusses the Difference Between a Traditional Negligence Case and a Medical Malpractice Case

by Frankl Kominsky Injury Lawyers

Last month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a Florida premises liability lawsuit that presented the court with the opportunity to discuss when a negligence case becomes subject to the additional procedural requirements of a medical malpractice case under Florida law. Ultimately, the court determined that the facts as presented in the case fell within the traditional theory of negligence, and it was not subject to the additional requirements of Florida medical malpractice cases.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a patient of the defendant doctor. The patient had an appointment with the defendant to remove a catheter. When the defendant doctor entered the examination room, he instructed the plaintiff to climb atop the examination table. The doctor then pulled out a small stepping stool to assist the plaintiff. Once the plaintiff was atop the table, the doctor scooted the stool back under the table.

The doctor removed the catheter without incident. At the completion of the procedure, the defendant instructed the plaintiff to get dressed and go make an appointment with the front desk for a follow-up visit. However, the doctor did not pull the stool back out from underneath the table. The doctor then left the room.