Verdicts by Location: Orlando
Shooting Wrongful Death 16-Year-old - Brevard County - Summary Judgment Granted.
Orlando Senior Partner Laurette Balinsky, Esq., obtained a final summary judgment in a negligent security case involving the shooting death of a 16 year old, in the matter styled Shonte Bunch, as PR of the Estate of Martorell Williams v. Pilot Travel Centers LLC, SSA Delaware and Northlake Foods, d/b/a Waffle House in Brevard County, Florida. The PR alleged that Pilot/ SSA breached their non-delegable duty to decedent to provide a reasonably safe premise by allowing crowds to congregate on their premises, thereby creating a foreseeable zone of risk to invitees. The Complaint alleged that Defendants allowed hundreds of people to congregate on the premises and that multiple crimes purportedly occurred in the three years before the incident. The plaintiff was seeking $5M on the case.
Defendants moved for summary judgment shortly after the May 2021 amendment to Rule 1.510, Fla.R.Civ.P. Defendants’ Motion was based on two distinct grounds: (1) that Defendants owed no duty to the decedent; and (2) decedent’s claim was barred by Fla. Stat. §768.075(4) since he was involved in a felony at the time of the shooting.
Defendants’ primary argument as to lack of duty was predicated on the fact that the shooter fired the deadly shot from the premises of our client, and that there was no record evidence as to the exact location of the decedent to our property line when he was shot. Defendants argued that decedent was, at best, within an easement granted to the adjoining property owner, and not within a location controlled by Defendants. As such, it was Defendants’ position that there is no duty under Florida law to protect an invitee from a crime committed by a third party outside of its premises. To hold otherwise, would extend Florida law and turn premises liability on its head.
Plaintiff vigorously opposed Defendants’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment and filed an Affidavit by security expert, Michael Zoovas. Within their Reply brief, Defendants moved to strike the Affidavit, arguing that it was essentially a sham, because the expert ignored evidence and completely failed to acknowledge the location of the shooter. Defendants further argued that the expert’s opinion that the decedent was shot on Pilot’s premises should be stricken because the opinion was not supported by any evidence and fell outside the expert’s background, education, training, and expertise. Moreover, the location of the decedent was not germane to the duty argument, since it was clear that the tort was committed (i.e., the gun was fired) from a location outside of premises owned or controlled by Defendants. In other words, the expert’s Affidavit was simply a distraction.
The Court conducted two lengthy hearings. Plaintiff submitted a total of four briefs; one was submitted the day after the conclusion of the second hearing. After consideration of Plaintiff’s untimely Supplemental Memorandum of Law, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment. In its opinion, the Court stated that it was “loathe to find a ‘crowd’ as inherently dangerous a hazard as buried electric cables or to extend a duty to property owners for crimes that occur off their premises where that property owner has not caused the conditions for the injury.” The Court further found that the existence of an easement providing ingress and egress does not extend liability to Defendants, and that Defendants did not have a duty to decedent for criminal acts initiated on an adjoining property. This is a significant win for the defense bar, and protects property owners from an extension of liability for acts that occur outside of an owner’s premises, and from acts which are outside of their control.
Anthony Merendino, Esq., obtained a favorable result in a Motor Vehicle Accident matter styled Leon Hood & Felicia Brown v. Elizabeth Vilece and Frank Vilece when the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal and thereby upheld its prior Order dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice. The Court also granted the Defendants’ Motion for Costs for defending the action.
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant rear-ended the Plaintiffs’ motor vehicle. The Court issued a Case Management Order requiring the Plaintiffs to submit an Agreed Case Management Plan by a date certain outlining pretrial deadlines. The Plaintiffs failed to timely file an Agreed Case Management Plan by the deadline imposed by the Court’s Case Management Order. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring the Plaintiffs to explain why the Case Management Plan was not timely filed. Thereafter, counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed upon a Case Management Plan, but the Plaintiffs neglected to file the Case Management Plan. The Court subsequently entered an Order of Dismissal of the case without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal alleging excusable neglect, and filed an Affidavit of a paralegal supporting the excusable neglect (which attempted to explain why the agreed Case Management Plan had not been filed). At a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal, Mr. Merendino pointed out deficiencies in the Affidavit filed by the Plaintiffs and convinced the Court that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated the requisite excusable neglect. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal and thereby upheld its prior Order dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice. The Court also granted the Defendants’ Motion for Costs for defending the action.
Managing Partners Anthony Petrillo, Esq., and Anthony Merendino, Esq., obtained a favorable result in a personal injury matter styled Connie Ader v. Defendant Retail Store in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Florida. Plaintiff asked the jury for $1.1 million dollars at trial. The jury returned a verdict for $20,000 for the Plaintiff however Defendant had a proposal for settlement and is moving for attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiff alleged that while she was a business invitee of Defendant Retail Store, she sustained a permanent ulnar nerve injury in her left upper extremity as a result of cutting her left forearm on a display basket while walking past it at a Defendant Retail store. According to the Plaintiff, her left forearm was impaled by an allegedly defective display basket. Plaintiff’s position was that the allegedly defective wire basket either impacted her ulnar nerve or cut through the sensory branches of the ulnar nerve. Plaintiff claimed that as a result of the incident, she experienced pain, numbness, tingling, weakness, and burning in her left upper extremity, specifically, the 4th and 5th digits of her left hand, which caused her an inability to wear her wedding ring or grip/hold things including, among other things, a cell phone, golf club, bicycle handle, and her husband’s hand. Plaintiff sought damages for past and future pain & suffering, mental anguish, disability, disfigurement, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.
Prior to trial, Defendant Retail Store admitted liability. At trial, an adverse inference instruction was given to the jury regarding Defendant Retail Store's loss of certain evidence (display basket) which allowed the jury to infer that the missing evidence was unfavorable to Defendant Retail Store. Plaintiff asked the jury for $1.1 million dollars at trial using a per diem argument that Plaintiff should be awarded $8.00 per hour for the 5 years since the incident and the estimated 20 years she is projected to live under the Mortality Table guidelines (excluding 8 hours per day for sleeping).
Prior to trial, Defendant Retail Store served a Proposal for Settlement (“PFS”) on the Plaintiff, and depending on the amount of Plaintiff’s recoverable costs incurred prior to the date of the PFS, Defendant Retail Store will likely be entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and costs from the Plaintiff from the date the PFS was served. Read more
Laurette Balinsky, Esq., obtained a favorable result when the court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for fraud on the court. In the matter styled Freeman v. Adkins and Citrus Auto, Plaintiff was claiming injuries and damages stemming from an automobile accident. Plaintiff alleged severe injuries. Through discovery, the defense was able uncover inconsistencies and false statements made by the Plaintiff under oath. The defense obtained records from Plaintiff’s employer which completely contradicted much of Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her wage claim and alleged limitations. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss based on the clear and unequivocal false statements made under oath. Read more
On May 11, 2018, Jacksonville Managing Partner Todd Springer, Esq., and Lynette Whitehurst, Esq., received a defense verdict in the premises liability matter styled Renan Pierre v. Tiger Lake Subdivision Property Owners Association. Plaintiff presented a combined loss of past and future earning capacity of over $450,000 and future life care needs of over $500,000. Plaintiff Pierre was dumping a load of shell rock when the dump truck he was operating overturned on the unpaved roadway owned by Tiger Lake. Plaintiff alleged that the road was unsafe and was not properly compacted. The jury found no negligence on the part of Tiger Lake. Read more
On June 8, 2017, Orlando Partner Paul Jones, Esq. and Senior Associate Douglas Petro, Esq. obtained a favorable verdict in the slip and fall matter styled Alba v. Defendant Store. Plaintiff slipped and fell on a liquid left behind by the store’s floor scrubbing machine and there were no warning cones in place at the time. Plaintiff incurred $300,000 in medicals for multiple surgeries (knee arthroscopy, cervical fusion, hardware removal from prior lumbar fusion) with another $140,000 needed for future medical expenses including revision surgeries testified to by her treating neurosurgeon. Plaintiff asked the jury for over $800,000 in total. The jury awarded $18,000 representing the cost of initial treatment only and no award for pain and suffering damages. Defendant prevailed on its proposal for settlement and Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial was denied. Read More
Paul Jones and Joshua Parks obtained a favorable settlement during trial in an Auto Negligence case in Osceola County in the matter styled Motola v. De Laire on April 7, 2015. The Plaintiff was rear ended by the Defendant driver and liability was admitted prior to trial. As a result of the subject accident, the Plaintiff claimed injuries to his shoulder, back and legs. Read More
Paul Jones, Partner and Katherine Kmiec, Esq. of the Orlando office of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones obtained a defense verdict in a premises liability case styled Amber Hofer v. Kristen Costantino and State Farm in Orange County, March 21, 2012. The case involved an automobile accident near the University of Central Florida, where Plaintiff claimed that her car spun around two and a half times after being hit. The Plaintiff was 22 years old at the time of the accident and claimed that she permanently injured her neck and lower back in the impact. Read More
Paul Jones, Partner and Douglas Petro, Esq., of the Orlando office of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones obtained a defense verdict in an automobile accident case styled William G. Bruzon v. Antron L. James in Orange County, January 26, 2012. The case involved an automobile accident where the Plaintiff claimed his vehicle was struck on the driver's side while waiting to cross traffic, but the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff turned into his path of travel and caused the accident. Read More
Katherine Kmiec, Esq., and Doreen Lasch, Junior Partner of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones obtained a Dismissal with Prejudice in the case styled Marin v. The Hertz Corporation in Orange County. At the trial level, Plaintiff attempted to amend a premises liability cause of action to incorporate elements of Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) discrimination as elements of the underlying negligence cause of action. In his third amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged that because he was elderly, and had difficulties walking, Hertz discriminated against him under the ADA by failing to modify its policies and procedures to accommodate his disabilities, which resulted in bodily injury, pain and suffering to Plaintiff. Read More
Paul Jones, Partner and Thomas Farrell, Junior Partner of the Orlando office of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones obtained a defense verdict in a premises liability case styled Edward Elliott and Penelope Elliott v. Simon Property Group and Control Building Services, Inc. in Orange County, December 2, 2011. The case involved a slip and fall in a mall common area where the Plaintiff fell and injured his right knee in a puddle of water that was on the floor for approximately 15-20 minutes. Read More
Verdict, October 10, 2011. Read More
Swimming Pool Accident (Paralysis), Orange County, Joseph Scarpa, Junior Partner and Paul Jones, Orlando Partner, Dismissed, April, 2011. Read More
2011, James Waczewski and Leena Joseph. Read More
Slip and Fall—Ladder, Polk County, Paul Jones and Thomas Farrell, $1M Sought, Defense Verdict, 1/21/2011. Read More
products causing a large fire. Read More
Paul S. Jones, Partner obtained a ruling in favor of the Defendant on his Motion for Final Summary Judgment on August 22, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by the Honorable Gregory A. Presnell. The Plaintiff, Deborah Canaday, claimed in her Complaint that the Defendant, her employer, violated the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. 2611, by first failing to advise the Plaintiff of her Federally-protected rights; then by denying her leave under said Act; and finally of terminating her by reason of excessive absenteeism, which the Plaintiff claimed should have been accommodated by FMLA leaves of absence. Numerous depositions were taken of the Plaintiff’s supervisors; which evidence showed that contrary to the Plaintiff’s allegations, she was advised of the availability of medical leave under the aforementioned Act. Read More
Paul Jones, Partner and Joseph Scarpa, Esq. received a defense verdict on June 30, 2006 for a personal injury claim. On July 28, 2003, the Plaintiff was hit by a car that failed to stop at an intersection. The vehicle then fled the scene. A witness to the accident obtained the license plate number of the fleeing vehicle. The officer responding to the accident traced the fleeing vehicle’s license plate to the Defendant’s residence. The Defendant argued her vehicle was not involved in the accident with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Webster, a pain management specialist, testified at trial that the Plaintiff suffered a permanent injury to his cervical and lumbar spine as a result of the accident. The Defendant’s expert, Dr. Lotman, an orthopedic surgeon, found that the Plaintiff suffered a cervical sprain as a result of the accident and suspected the Plaintiff may have also suffered a compression fracture in his cervical spine at C-6. The Plaintiff incurred $5,915.00 in medical expenses by the time of trial. The Plaintiff’s expert pain management specialist testified at trial that the Plaintiff would need $4,000-$5,000 in future treatment for the rest of his life, to include trigger point injections for the control of pain. The jury found that it was the Defendant's vehicle that caused the accident, but was convinced by the defense that the Plaintiff was not injured in the accident. Read More