On November 15, 2024, Stuart Senior Partner Nora Bailey and Managing Partner Benjamin Pahl, as well as Associate Zoe Nelson, obtained a complete defense verdict after a four-day jury trial in St. Lucie County, Florida. Plaintiff alleged that she was severely burned due to negligent maintenance of our client, Atlantis Cove, LLC, an apartment complex in Ft. Pierce, Florida, when her stove spontaneously caught fire due to a purported defect in the right front burner. Plaintiff claimed that our maintenance team should have inspected the apartment more frequently, such that the defect would have been noted before the incident occurred. Defendant denied liability, arguing that more frequent inspections were not required and would not have caught the defect as it was a solely internal issue within the coil-top burner that would not have been identified any sooner; to the extent the defect could have been visible, Defendant argued that the tenant/Plaintiff had better knowledge of the condition of her stove by virtue of cooking with it daily as opposed to the maintenance team who could not enter without her permission. At trial, Defendant introduced 28 pages of work orders submitted by the tenant, none of which pertained to the stove, to argue that maintenance was not on notice of any concerns related to the burner. Plaintiff’s theory of liability throughout litigation was that she had been electrically shocked and lit on fire from ‘the inside out’, but changed for the first time at trial where she testified that she did not know what happened. Ms. Bailey was able to elicit testimony during the cross of Plaintiff’s electrical engineer that the pan was insulated and could not have shocked her, and that the defect was “possibly” visible prior to the incident. He further admitted that he could not testify as to how the defect in the burner caused the Plaintiff’s injuries, which were indisputably oil/liquid burns based on the testimony of her treating physicians. The defense experts testified that this was an unfortunate cooking fire unrelated to any defect in the stove and that the defect Plaintiff claimed occurred would not have been visible even with radiography of the stove, far beyond the capabilities of an ordinary maintenance team. Defense plastic surgeon testified that the burns were not electrical in nature but were rather clearly caused by oil or hot liquid, and that the Plaintiff had healed well with no neurological or functional limitations.
Over the course of four days, the jury listened to testimony that the Plaintiff suffered second-degree burns over 10% of her body, resulting in the need for transfer to a specialty burn unit and skin grafting to her arm, face, and abdomen. At issue was also a potential spoliation of evidence, as the Plaintiff failed to produce the burner, the frying pan, and other components of the stove until two years into litigation; the remaining components of the stove were never produced. Through pretrial motion practice, Ms. Bailey was successful in securing an adverse inference instruction to be given to the jury on this point. Further, during examination of the defense’s last witness, a friend of the Plaintiff’s, Mr. Pahl was able to elicit testimony that the Plaintiff had talked to the witness before her testimony about what to say on the stand. This resulted in an instruction to the jury that the Plaintiff had violated a court order, which the jury was to take into account when weighing the Plaintiff’s credibility.
Ultimately, the Plaintiff asked for $960,000, comprised of $140,000 in past medical expenses and the rest in pain and suffering. After deliberating for more than three hours, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict.
