She was referred to a board-certified orthopedic surgeon. He faced limitations in diagnosis because of her pacemaker. He found a lumbar spine disc herniation and misaligned patella. He suggested an alternate treatment. She wasn’t considered to be the right patient for this treatment. She sued the chain store claiming negligence. The controversy went to trial. There, she presented evidence of her medical expenses past and future. She also tried to establish pain and suffering damages. The defendant didn’t put forward an expert. Instead, it tried to blame her pain on other medical conditions such as arthritis. In its closing argument, it claimed she was exaggerating her pain, even if she was hurt by the fall.

The jury awarded her past medical expenses. It didn’t award her pain and suffering or any future damages. The court denied a motion for new trial. It also denied a motion for additur, which is a request that the court decide whether the amount of damages was insufficient given the facts and circumstances.

The plaintiff appealed the denial of these motions. The appellate court explained that future damages are uncertain as compared to past damages. However, if a jury knows that medical expenses were incurred because of an accident, an award that doesn’t include past pain and suffering may be inadequate. In this case, the issue of future damages was disputed; it remained in controversy through trial. The jury’s failure to award these damages was properly supported by evidence.

However, its failure to award past noneconomic damages was at issue. The plaintiff’s expert testified about trauma-induced pain; the defendant did not present an expert to counter. The defendant conceded she’d experienced pain in its closing. The appellate court reasoned that the failure to award even a small sum for past noneconomic losses wasn’t supported by the weight of the evidence. It held that the lower court’s denial of the motion for a new trial or additur was in error. It reversed on the issue of past noneconomic damages. It specified that if the same lower court judge was available, he or she could consider additur in order to satisfy the award of a new trial.

If you were injured in a slip and fall in Jacksonville, you should consult experienced attorney Kevin Cobbin. Our firm represents people throughout Duval County and the surrounding areas. Call us at (904) 357-8448 or complete our online form.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendant had created a dangerous condition because the same brick pavers covered both the porch and walkway so that they blended into each other. The plaintiffs argued that this breached the duty to warn and the duty to keep the premises reasonably safe. Before trial, she testified she was looking ahead when she left the house, but it seemed like a single level.

The defendant made a motion for summary judgment. It argued that no competent evidence had been submitted regarding the dangerous condition serving as optical illusion. It submitted a verified expert report whose opinion was that the way the step was configured wasn’t an unusual design. The landing was up to code.

The plaintiffs submitted two expert affidavits from a licensed Florida building inspector. The expert stated that the failure to provide a landing suitable with the Florida Building Code had hidden the step’s existence. The expert’s opinion was that the walkway would have needed to be removed when the complex was changed to a single family occupancy.

The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding that the danger was an open and obvious condition that wasn’t inherently hazardous. It also found the code violation didn’t contribute to the fall.

The appellate court explained that two duties are owed to invitees by property owners. First, property owners should warn of hidden dangers about which they know or should know, and the invitee doesn’t and could not find by using due care. Second, property owners should use ordinary care to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition.

Changes in floor levels don’t usually create a dangerous condition. However, when the construction design or mode creates a hidden danger that a reasonable invitee wouldn’t anticipate can change several floor levels into an inherently dangerous condition.

The appellate court concluded there was material factual issue about whether the defendant had generated a concealed danger that a prudent invitee wouldn’t expect through its uncommon mode of construction or design. The lower court, through its trier of fact, would need to figure out whether the walkway complied with the Florida Building Code and whether it hid the step’s location and presence. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment and sent the case back for additional proceedings.

If you were injured as a visitor to someone else’s property in Jacksonville, you should consult experienced slip and fall attorney Kevin Cobbin. Our firm represents people throughout Duval County and the surrounding areas. Call him at (904) 357-8448 or complete our online form.

Prior to trial, the employer stipulated that its driver was liable for causing the crash and that it was vicariously liable. It also agreed that if the jury awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages, the plaintiff would also be entitled to punitive damages. It moved to bifurcate the trial to exclude evidence that the driver was drunk while the jury determined whether to award compensatory damages. The trial was bifurcated, but the court didn’t exclude proof of intoxication while compensatory damages were being considered.

The plaintiff talked about the defendant driver’s intoxication upon opening and closing. He also submitted evidence to that effect. However, he also told the jury this information wasn’t relevant to deciding compensatory damages. The lower court instructed the jury that the defendant driver was impaired by alcohol and revealed to them his blood alcohol level, which was far higher than the legal limit.

The plaintiff presented medical experts. The defendants sought to poke holes in the experts’ credibility regarding relationship to counsel.

The plaintiff was awarded more than 2.5 million in compensatory damages. The lower court also submitted the question of punitive damages to the jury, in spite of the defendants’ concession. The jury decided the plaintiff was owed punitive damages. It only awarded the plaintiff $15,000 in punitive damages.

On appeal, the defendants claimed there was an error in the lower court’s decision to permit evidence to be introduced regarding the driver’s intoxication. They also argued that it was a mistake not to let them question the experts on their friendship with the plaintiff’s counsel.

The appellate court explained in an auto accident case, when a defendant admits its liability, evidence of the defendant’s sobriety is prejudicial and irrelevant. When a defendant admits liability or damages, they are removed as issues. The appellate court found that it was an abuse of discretion to allow intoxication evidence in the compensatory phase of a bifurcated trial, when both punitive damages and liability were conceded by the defendant. In this case, the plaintiff had placed intoxication in front of the jury while also explaining they should ignore that evidence.

The lower court found that it was in error to permit presentation of intoxication and sent the case back for a new trial.

The appellate court further found that the lower court should have allowed answers given by the plaintiffs’ expert during deposition and the plaintiffs’ delay in designating experts disadvantaged the defense. Similarly, the defendant should have been able to ask about the relationship between plaintiff’s counsel and the doctor.

If you were injured in a car accident caused by someone else in Jacksonville, you should consult experienced attorney Kevin Cobbin. Our firm represents people throughout Duval County and the surrounding areas. Call him at (904) 357-8448 or complete our online form.

As the defendant truck driver backed up, he looked at his mirrors. He would later testify he believed no cars were coming. As he tried to straighten the cab to realign it with the trailer, he blocked the traffic flow and a few seconds passed before the plaintiff’s oncoming car hit the cab. The truck driver estimated the car was going 50-60 mph at the point of collision.

The plaintiff claimed his car was on cruise control at 50 mph, which was just under the speed limit of 55 mph He wasn’t distracted. However, there was no light on the road, and the truck appeared out of nowhere. Due to the crash, he suffered fractures of his heel, ankle and leg bones.

At trial, the defendant admitted its driver had been negligent in how he maneuvered the tractor-trailer, but claimed that the plaintiff’s injuries were bad because he’d been driving at a very high speed. The plaintiff presented an expert who investigated commercial vehicle collisions. He estimated that the plaintiff was 1400 feet behind a curve in the highway when the defendant started backing up. He said that the cab would have been visible nine seconds from the collision, but the reflective tape was irregular and would have been ineffective at its 45 degree angle. He also opined that the plaintiff might not have realized he was looking at a hazard when he came around the curve.

The defendant called a consulting engineer to be its expert. The defense expert opined that the plaintiff could have braked sooner and avoided the collision. He also held a nighttime simulation and said that there was no point while taking the plaintiff’s role in the accident during the simulation that he couldn’t see a flashing light. He also testified there might be multiple contributing legal causes of the collision.

The lower court ruled there was no fact for the jury to decide because it had been unanimous through all the experts. The defendant asked for a directed verdict on causation, liability, and comparative fault. The lower court ruled there was an outstanding factual issue of regarding perception and visual clutter. If the jury believed the plaintiff’s expert, they could find for the plaintiff. The jury found the plaintiff was at fault by 1% and the defendant was 99% at fault. The defendant asked for a new trial or a new trial for damages. The lower court denied.

The defendant appealed. The appellate court explained that both the plaintiff and defendant’s negligence was at issue below. Comparative negligence only reduces damages after liability is established. When a plaintiff is 100% responsible for his own injuries, the defendant’s actions can’t be a legal cause.

In this case, the defendant’s expert testified the plaintiff was the sole legal cause of his own injuries. The lower court had made an error in directing a verdict that the defendant’s driver was the legal cause of the plaintiff’s harm as a matter of law. The defendant’s expert had called into question whether the plaintiff’s distractedness was the only reason for his injuries. This was enough to send the question of legal cause to the jury. The court reversed the final judgment and sent the case back for a new trial.

If you were catastrophically injured in a collision with a truck in Jacksonville, you should consult experienced personal injury attorney Kevin Cobbin. Our firm represents people throughout Duval County and the surrounding areas. Call us at (904) 357-8448 or complete our online form.

The plaintiff claimed that the store’s negligence had resulted in laundry detergent on the floor that caused him to slip and fall. The case arose when a customer spilled laundry detergent near the store’s checkout counter. The store manager and another worker were behind the counter. The manager left the counter to get cleaning supplies when he saw the spilled detergent. The other worker kept ringing up customers.

Around 41 seconds after the other customer spilled the detergent, the plaintiff came into the store. He stepped on the detergent as he went by the counter and fell ten seconds after entering the store. Thirty seconds after that, the store manager came back with supplies to clean up the detergent.

The plaintiff sued on the grounds that the store had departed from its duty of care by failing to keep the property reasonably safe for visitors and failing to provide warnings of an unreasonably dangerous condition. The store filed a motion for summary judgment. The store argued that the one minute between the spill and fall wasn’t enough time for it to fix the spill as a matter of law. It argued the store manager had been reasonable to go get cleaning supplies to fix the situation. The motion did not, however, talk about the store’s duty to provide a warning.

The plaintiff submitted deposition testimony of the store’s employees. The check-out person testified the store manager hadn’t been told of the spill by the customer. She said that there were sandwich boards that could be placed to provide warnings to customers. The store manager acknowledged that if he’d told her about the spill, the check-out person could have told the customer about the detergent as he came into the store if he’d let her know about the spill and this would have been the safer course of action. He admitted it was a slip and fall that could have been prevented.

In its summary judgment motion, the store argued there hadn’t been enough time to fix the problem. The plaintiff argued that the store hadn’t adequately addressed its duty to warn about a known and dangerous condition of which they’d actually known. The court held in favor of the store.

The appellate court explained that a defendant moving for summary judgment needs to show there wasn’t any negligence or that the sole proximate cause of the injury was the plaintiff’s negligence. A business owner should use reasonable care to keep the property reasonably safe and provide warnings of concealed dangers of which it knew or should have known, and that weren’t known by the business invitee, nor could have been discovered with the use of reasonable care.

The appellate court agreed that the store hadn’t departed from its duty to keep the property reasonably safe, because it didn’t have enough time to remedy the condition in the 51 seconds between the spill and the fall. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s granting of summary judgment. However, the deposition testimony showed that the store may have had enough opportunity to provide a warning about the dangerous condition. There was a disputed issue of material fact.

The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings in the lower court. It didn’t decide whether the detergent was an open and obvious condition.

If you sustained personal injuries in a slip and fall accident in Jacksonville, you should consult experienced attorney Kevin Cobbin. Our firm represents people throughout Duval County and the surrounding areas. Call him at (904) 357-8448 or complete our online form.