The incident occurred roughly three years ago at the exclusive private school where the plaintiff was practicing. The plaintiff claims that while he was practicing, a large stage prop fell from above on top of him. He suffered several injuries, according to the complaint, including abrasions and a nervous system injury. The plaintiff said that he received medical treatment and nursing treatment for the accident and his injuries have compromised his ability to pursue “normal pursuits of life.” He is seeking damages in excess of $15,000.

The complaint names the school as the sole defendant and says that the school is exclusively at fault for the accident.

This is a Premises Liability Claim

Even though it isn’t a slip and fall accident, the lawsuit is filed under the theory of premises liability. In order to successfully win a lawsuit such as this, the plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and neglected to act.

Key to pursuing a lawsuit on this theory of personal injury is showing that the school did, in fact, know that there was some problem with the stage prop prior to the injury. Interestingly, the plaintiff could have pursued a lawsuit on the basis that the stage prop was negligently set up, but elected not to.

Premises liability claims most often are decided on the basis of whether or not the event was foreseeable. The complaint appears to claim that the school had actual, as opposed to constructive, knowledge of the dangerous prop. This too is a more difficult case to make.

Constructive vs. Actual Knowledge in Premises Liability

Actual knowledge is exactly what it sounds like. Essentially, a plaintiff claims that a defendant had knowledge of a dangerous condition and elected not to remedy it. Constructive knowledge assumes that the defendant should have known or should have checked to ensure that the premises did not have a dangerous condition. Proving actual knowledge is more difficult since you have to prove what the defendant did or did not know. Constructive knowledge is a weaker claim, but easier to prove.

In this case, the defendant is alleging that the school had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition and left it unremedied. This, perhaps, could be a sign that the plaintiff is seeking punitive damages against the school by claiming gross negligence as opposed to ordinary negligence.

Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Lawyer Today

If you’ve been injured by a dangerous condition that’s been left unremedied in a place you’ve been invited on to, you’re entitled to recover damages for your injuries. The Miami personal injury attorneys at the office of Alan Goldfarb, P.A. can file a claim against the negligent party and get you the injury relief you deserve.

Resource:

floridapolitics.com/archives/309847-local-musician-sues-exclusive-shorecrest-prep-for-injuries-after-on-stage-accident

https://www.goldfarbpa.com/woman-wins-430000-in-trader-joes-slip-and-fall/

The building is the Old Post Office Building located near the White House. The woman says she wanted to stay there because of its association with the President. The federal government leases the property to the hotel for use as a hotel and has thus also been named in the lawsuit.

If the woman’s claims are accurate and she did, in fact, suffer an injury that could have been avoided had there been railing, then her case is likely to be successful and then the question would come down to damages. Below, we’ll discuss how the hotel could defend itself from this claim.

The Steps Were Not Open to the Public

If the steps were closed off to the public and the woman was in an area that she wasn’t authorized to be, this would put a major dent in her lawsuit against the hotel. Areas that are closed off to the public have a much higher liability threshold for proprietors and claimants are severely limited in what kinds of damages they are allowed to recover.

The Woman Caused Her Own Injury By Recklessness or Inattention

If the hotel can successfully argue that the woman is (at least partly) responsible for her own injuries they can severely reduce their own liability. For instance, they could claim that she was looking at her phone and didn’t know where she was going. Had she been paying attention to the steps, she would have known there was no railing and been more careful. While the hotel may still be liable for (even a majority) of the blame, some of the blame would be assigned to the woman and thus reduce her damages by that amount.

Additionally, if the hotel claims that some reckless behavior, such as running down the steps caused her to trip and fall, the link between the lack of a railing and the woman’s injuries becomes fuzzier.

Hotel Will Likely Target Damages

In a case like this where a proprietor maintained a dangerous condition on their property, the best course of action is to target the extent of the woman’s damages. In other words, to try to claim that her injuries are not as serious as she says they are. In cases where her credibility comes into question, jurors and judges have a difficult time awarding damages to injury victims that insult their intelligence. The hotel will likely settle this case somewhere in the realm of $500,000 to $600,000 depending on the credibility of the victim’s medical records.

Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Attorney Today

If you’ve been injured by a negligently maintained property, the Miami premises liability attorneys at the office of Alan Goldfarb, P.A. can help you recover damages related to your injuries. Call today for a free consultation.

Resource:

cnn.com/2019/06/12/politics/ellen-snow-trump-washington-hotel/index.html

https://www.goldfarbpa.com/three-u-s-companies-hit-with-multiple-wrongful-deaths-in-u-k-fire/

Damages and Injuries

The woman claims that, as a result of the bird, she suffered traumatic brain injury, neck injuries, and herniated discs that required surgery. The woman further claims that this resulted in permanent disability, loss of wages, and pain and suffering. She is seeking damages in excess of $15,000.

Evaluating the Quality of the Case Against Disney

While a case like this seems like a bit of a stretch, it is subject to the same laws and rules as any other personal injury lawsuit. In this case, you have a premises liability suit that alleges that Disney did not do enough to prevent injuries to guests who were enjoying grounds. Essentially, a lawsuit like this would follow all the same rules as a premises liability suit.

There are two elements to a premises liability suit. The first is that Disney knew or should have known about a potential threat. The second is that there was some way to prevent it and they did it. If injuries result from either failure, then Disney can be held liable, even for “act of bird”.

However, this is much more difficult to prove than it sounds. For a premises liability lawsuit to be successful, the plaintiff must be able to establish that the event that precipitated the injury was foreseeable.

How the Plaintiff Can Win This Case

The plaintiff alleges that Disney knew that the area where the woman was attacked was a seasonal nesting place for birds. By even allowing patrons to access that area, Disney put their guests in danger of being potentially assaulted by birds. Since Disney was aware of the danger and an obvious remedy was available, Disney was negligent for the woman’s injuries and should be held liable for repaying her medical expenses, lost time from work, and pain and suffering.

How the Plaintiff Can Lose This Case

Regardless of the strength of the law behind the plaintiff’s case, juries just don’t like paying out plaintiff’s when it’s not the defendant who is directly responsible for their injuries. In this case, you have a bird as the main culprit. At least one juror is going to say, “How can we hold Disney responsible for acts of birds?” and eventually, “Does this mean I can be held responsible for something that birds do?” The plaintiff’s attorney will need to establish that, not only is Disney responsible for the acts of birds, but that an injury like this was inevitable and it’s their poor client who ended up paying the price.

Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Attorney Today

If you’ve been attacked by a bird or otherwise injured, you should talk to a personal injury attorney about the merits of a lawsuit. The Miami premises liability attorneys at the office of Alan Goldfarb, P.A. has helped several injury victims receive compensation for their injuries. Talk to us today!

Resource:

miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article230938928.html

https://www.goldfarbpa.com/walmart-sued-in-premises-liability-case/

Video footage showed the man dropping ice on the floor in front of a soda dispenser and then proceeding to slip. If you’re thinking about doing this yourself, you should realize that these types of cases generally take years to resolve and, point of fact, soda dispensers are a likely place where you’ll find surveillance cameras. Additionally, evidence that you staged an accident can be used against in court if you ever actually do injure yourself and a proprietor is legitimately at fault. Below, we’ll discuss slip and fall accidents and why this man’s case was never very likely to have succeeded.

Proving a Slip and Fall Accident Claim

Premises liability claims, such as slip and fall accidents, require that the plaintiff show that the accident was foreseeable. This is true of all premises liability claims from slip and falls to negligent security claims to attractive nuisance claims. For that reason, ignorance of the dangerous condition can be entered as a valid defense against the claim, hence making it very difficult to prove. In many cases, personal injury attorneys will be required to chip away at the ignorance defense. There are three ways to do this:

1. We show that the proprietor or employees knew about the dangerous condition – For instance, if an employee walked past the dangerous condition and did nothing to remedy it, that can be used as evidence of foreseeability.
2. We should that the proprietor should have known about the dangerous condition – In other words, simply being oblivious is not necessarily a valid defense. In cases of icy parking lots or other conditions of that nature, the law permits a plaintiff to claim that
3. We show that the proprietor actually caused the dangerous condition – In cases where the proprietor or an employee for the company literally causes the dangerous condition to exist, then they cannot claim a lack of foreseeability.

Most of the assertions or arguments that make for a successful premises liability lawsuit are aimed at debunking the claim that the event was not foreseeable. Now in a case like the individual who spilled ice on the floor, a soda dispenser in a place where the staff would be expected to check on rather frequently. This, in fact, is why insurance companies give proprietors rebates and reduce their premiums for having the camera there in the first place.

Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Attorney

If you’ve been injured by the negligence of a careless proprietor, the Miami premises liability attorneys at the office of Alan Goldfarb, P.A. can help you. If you’ve thrown ice on the floor to stage your own injury, there’s nothing that Alan Goldfarb, P.A. can do for you. If you fall into the former category, give us a call to set up a free consultation. We will be happy to help.

Resource:

wesh.com/article/video-fake-fall-ahead-of-phony-insurance-claim-caught-on-camera/26109845

https://www.goldfarbpa.com/goodyear-accused-of-legal-misconduct-over-defective-tires/

University Claims the Event is an “Act of God”

Blaming God has become increasingly fashionable in premises liability lawsuits. This is largely due to the structure and how the question of negligence is determined in these lawsuits. All premises liability lawsuits boil down to one question: Was the event foreseeable? In a case where the event was foreseeable, the property owner or manager is responsible for the victim’s damages. In the case where a dangerous circumstance could not have been foreseen, then you have to blame God. Since God is not a citizen of the United States, nor does He hold any assets in his name, the lawsuit can be dismissed without the property owner or manager taking responsibility or paying out damages to an injured victim. The victim, however, may get to call in a heavenly chit when the time comes.

Woman Claims the Event is an “Act of Negligence”

The University ultimately settled the lawsuit and the details of that settlement are sealed. In cases like this, a victim may be given a handsome settlement but that is conditioned on keeping their lips sealed concerning the amount or the details. The University still gets to blame God and the woman gets fair compensation. So everyone goes away happy.

However, the details of a case like this can be instructive. The woman claimed that the University failed to secure the sign properly or check to ensure that the sign was properly secured before inviting fans into the stadium. The University does have a duty of care to ensure that the sign is secured and that it was properly installed. When a gust of wind took the sign and sent it airborne, the University blamed God and insinuated that the injured woman was likely inebriated.

An attorney for the woman said that she suffered serious head trauma, required medical attention, and has permanent and continuous impairments due to her injury.

Blaming the Victim and God

In a lawsuit against an at-fault property owner who is being sued in a premises liability suit, the defense’s most likely course of action will be to blame the victim. In fact, any civil defense attorney who did not attempt to blame the victim for the accident would likely be committing malpractice against their client. For those who are in the midst of filing lawsuits against negligent parties yourself, this should be understood. Regardless of the circumstances, the defense will make every effort to blame you for your injuries.

Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Attorney

The Miami legal team at the office of Alan Goldfarb P.A. has helped our clients recover millions of dollars in compensatory damages for their injuries. If you’ve been injured, you can trust our firm to handle your lawsuit effectively and efficiently. Give us a call or talk to us online to set up a free consultation.

Resources:

orlandosentinel.com/news/orange/os-ne-ucf-settles-lawsuit-fan-hit-sign-spectrum-stadium-20181219-story.html

https://www.goldfarbpa.com/walmart-sued-in-premises-liability-case/

According to the latest lawsuit, Heather Phinney of St. Petersburg, tripped and fell on a piece of raised floorboard. She claims that when she fell, she hit her head on the ground suffering severe bodily injuries, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment, and medical expenses.

Is This Case a Winner?

All those closed-circuit cameras you see in Walmart aren’t just for catching thieves. They also serve the purpose of protecting Walmart in liability lawsuits. Typically, when you’re injured at Walmart, you will file a claim with them. Their insurance company will then give you a call explaining to you why the accident was your fault. This forces you into the position of suing them. So the question then becomes: What possible defenses does Walmart have in a case like this?

Understanding Negligence in Premises Liability

In a premises liability lawsuit, it is assumed that the owner or operator of the store has a duty of care to those that they invite onto the premises. However, this duty of care only extends so far. For instance, the proprietor must know about the dangerous condition and have done nothing about it to open themselves up to liability. Plaintiffs can also make the argument that the proprietor should have known that the dangerous condition was likely.

In this case, we can probably assume that Walmart knew about the raised floorboard, so the plaintiff’s suit seems likely to proceed on that basis. Walmart would be negligent for allowing a raised floorboard to go unrepaired for an extended period of time. The key, however, is foreseeability. It is eminently foreseeable that a raised floorboard does pose a risk to patrons.

What Kind of Defense Can Walmart Put Up in This Case?

In a case like this where Walmart left a dangerous condition in their store, their only possible defense would be that the individual who tripped and fell on the dangerous condition should have seen it and avoided it. In this case, the defense would be that the customer did not use adequate care in avoiding the dangerous condition.

In cases where there is a slip and fall danger, this kind of defense makes a lot of sense. If someone sees a slippery condition and does not adequately attempt to avoid it, then they share at least some responsibility for their injuries.

The question then becomes: What does Walmart’s store footage show? The most likely answer is: A woman tripping over a raised floorboard that she did not see.

Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Attorney

The Miami personal injury attorneys at the office of Alan Goldfarb P.A. help injured individuals recover damages caused by another’s negligence. If you’re injured, call us or talk to us online and we can begin discussing your case.

Resource:

flarecord.com/stories/511627446-wal-mart-customer-alleges-store-s-negligence-caused-her-to-fall

Is this just such a lawsuit? Are the politicians right?

A lawsuit like this falls under the tort theory of negligent security. Negligent security is when a proprietor or event planner fails to provide the necessary security required to keep their patrons safe. The plaintiffs, in this case, are alleging that both the event host and EA Sports are negligent for allowing the fatal shooting to happen. Had they provided adequate security, there may have been some means to stop the tragedy.

Breaking Down the Claim

The shooting took place at the Jacksonville Landing mall. According to reports, a fire marshall had shut down the business that hosted the event, Chicago Pizza, for fire code violations. In addition, the game room where the event took place was also in violation of fire codes as it had video games that were blocking exits. The plaintiffs will argue that this contributed to the death toll and the sense of panic surrounding the incident. Whether or not unblocked fire exits would have made a difference is purely speculation.

The mall itself has come under fire as well as the center of a number of violent crimes. The plaintiffs will argue that some type of violent crime was foreseeable and that adequate security could have prevented the incident from occurring.

The question then becomes: What was EA’s part to play in all of this. What we know if that EA allowed the event to be held at a dangerous venue. In addition, the company pledged $1 million dollars to the victims and canceled other Madden tournaments. But ultimately, are they responsible?

The Duty of Care

Fundamentally, this is a premises liability lawsuit. In premises liability lawsuits, establishing a duty of care is the most difficult part for the plaintiff. A plaintiff must be able to show that the owner/operator of the venue either knew about a potential danger or should have known about the potential danger. Where there is little question that the mall could have prevented the tragedy with better security, what should EA Sports have done?

In order to prove that EA Sports should be held liable for the injuries and lives lost at the event, the plaintiffs must establish that EA owed a duty of care to those who were attending the Madden tournament. It may seem like a stretch, but if the plaintiffs can dredge up some proof that there were similar altercations at other events, then they may be able to prove their case. The question comes down to foreseeability.

Contact a Miami Personal Injury Attorney Today

If you’ve sustained injuries due to someone else’s negligence, give Alan Goldfarb P.A. a call or contact us online for a free consultation in our Miami office. We are eager to assist you with your case.

Resource:

www.engadget.com/2018/08/31/madden-shooting-jacksonville-survivor-sues-ea-venue/

One of the bullets fractured his hip while the other virtually destroyed his kidney. Other bullets had perforated his large intestine and required extensive surgery. The fact that Gore survived at all was a miracle.

Gore’s attorneys were successfully able to argue that due in large part to the layout of the apartment complex, it would have been very easy to secure. They further argued that the defendant had a duty to secure the safety of tenants at the apartment complex and that the apartment complex was negligent for not adequately protecting its tenants in what is largely regarded as a high crime area.

In response, attorneys for the apartment complex settled the personal injury lawsuit for $3 million.

Elements of this Personal Injury Lawsuit

In a premises liability lawsuit, a plaintiff must be able to prove negligence. In other words, the plaintiff must prove that the premises’ owner or management failed to act in accord with a basic standard for securing the safety of those who frequent the premises. In addition, an attorney must show that the owner or management of the premises owed the injured party a standard of care. They must finally show that by breaching this standard the plaintiff suffered injuries.

The major point of contention in a lawsuit such as this is establishing that the defendant owed the plaintiff a standard of care that was breached. In premises liability tort, this is known as security negligence. The plaintiff brought several witnesses who complained that the apartment complex offered extremely lax security. Several witnesses attested to the fact that doors entering the apartment complex were easily accessible to criminals. In many cases, doors were left open.

The defense countered that this was a robbery that had gone bad and blamed the injuries on Gore’s negligence. Nonetheless, they settled the lawsuit.

After undergoing several extensive surgeries, Gore continues to have difficulty walking and lives with daily pain. This will make it difficult for him to enjoy the kinds of sports he once enjoyed.

Have You Been Injured by Another Party’s Negligence?

If so, the attorneys at the office of Alan Goldfarb, P.A. of Miami can help get you the justice that you deserve. Give us a call at (305) 371-3111 or contact us online, and we will begin preparing your case immediately.

Resource:

law.com/dailybusinessreview/2018/06/18/miami-lawyers-negotiate-3-million-settlement-for-visitor-shot-at-apartment-complex/

This may sound irrelevant, but actually, it has a profound impact on the case.

Diversity Jurisdiction

Diversity jurisdiction gives a federal court the power to hear a case when the amount of money in question exceeds $75,000 and the plaintiffs in question reside in different states. The plaintiff in question resides in Fort Lauderdale where the Walmart is located. By naming an on-duty manager as a co-defendant in this case, the plaintiff has effectively prevented the lawsuit from being heard in federal as opposed to state court.

Walmart attempted to argue that because of the amount of damages the plaintiff was seeking and because of the diversity of citizenships, that the case should be removed to a federal court. In some instances, it could be of benefit for the defense or the plaintiffs to have their cases heard by one or the other court. In this case, Walmart liked its chances with the federal courts while the plaintiffs clearly favored their chances with Florida’s state courts.

What ensued was the addition of the store’s manager to the lawsuit in an attempt to block the case from being removed to a federal court. Walmart was vehement in its arguments that the addition of the manager to the case served no other person than to eliminate the possibility of diversity jurisdiction. They further claimed that managers cannot be held liable in corporate tort claims, so there was no sense in an adding a floor manager to the case other than to block diversity jurisdiction.

While there’s no indication that they were wrong, the court still denied their Walmart’s motion. It will be tried in a Florida court.

What to Do if You Slip and Fall

In order to prove a slip and fall case against a proprietor, you must show that they were negligent. Generally speaking, negligence can be assumed when a spill or a banana peel is left in a high traffic area. However, there are plenty of instances in which a proprietor may not be liable, even when a patron is injured by fall in their store.

The hardest element to prove in a slip and fall case is that the manager knew or should have known about the potential hazard. In the second instance, there may be areas which are prone to spills or even having banana peels thrust about the floor. Here, a personal injury lawyer will make the case that Walmart employees should have been aware of the problem and removed the hazard before it became an injury risk.

The Miami attorneys at the office of Alan Goldfarb, P.A. have litigated several slip and fall accidents. If you have been injured due to carelessness and negligence of a proprietor, you deserve to be compensated. Give us a call at (305) 371-3111 or contact us online, and we can begin preparing your case immediately.

Resources:

flarecord.com/stories/511422425-court-won-t-drop-walmart-manager-from-slip-and-fall-lawsuit

law.cornell.edu/wex/diversity_jurisdiction

• Bodily injuries
• Medical bills
• Pain and suffering
• Emotional anguish
• Lost earnings

The plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount more than $15,000. She is seeking to hold the defendant responsible for her injuries, claiming that Walmart should have known that the cart was in the way, and made some effort to remove it. Because she was forced to go around the cart, she tripped and fell.

The Question of Negligence in Premises Liability

In the vast majority of personal injury cases, the question of negligence determines if the case is successful or not. As a litigator, the job of the plaintiff’s attorney is to prove that the defendant’s lack of foresight or carelessness resulted in the injury to their client. In order to do that, the plaintiff’s attorney must prove constructive knowledge of the potential hazard.

What does that mean?

Essentially, the business owner, manager, or some of the store’s employees would have to know beforehand of the potential danger. An obvious question is: how do you prove that someone knew or didn’t know about a potential hazard?

Constructive knowledge can be proven circumstantially. For instance, the plaintiff’s attorney can argue that the obstruction or hazard was there for an extended period of time and that the defendant should have known and remedied the situation.

Another way to prove circumstantial knowledge is that the event that caused the accident occurred regularly and that, therefore, the defendant should have foreseen this kind of problem and prevented it.

In this instance, it is more likely that the plaintiff will argue that carts left behind in aisles is a regular occurrence at the majority of Walmart stores. The store should have known that this presented a potential hazard and removed the cart from the aisle where it caused this woman’s injuries.

Comparative Fault and Premises Liability

Florida is also a state in which comparative negligence can determine that the premises owner and the injured party are partially at fault. For instance, if the woman attempted to squeeze through the aisle around a cart that was clearly in the way, then she may bear some of the blame for the accident.

In addition, Florida has something called the “Open and Obvious Doctrine”. That means that when an individual is injured by their own lack of observation, a judge can make the determination that the owner is not liable for the damages. This is very rarely employed, however, which means the case is likely to be decided by a jury. The jury will then determine the extent of the woman’s liability for not avoiding the cart and assign some of the blame to Walmart for leaving the obstruction where it didn’t belong.

Contact Us Today

If you have been injured by the negligent acts of someone else, we can help. Reach out to the office of Alan Goldfarb, P.A today. We’ll begin discussing your case and potential avenues for collecting damages.

Resources:

flarecord.com/stories/511392459-orlando-walmart-target-of-personal-injury-lawsuit

flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/768.81