Trial Verdicts and Results
Fort Lauderdale Managing Partner, William Peterfriend, Esq., and Boca Raton Junior Partner, Erin O’Connell, Esq., obtained a Dismissal with Prejudice following a hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Pleadings. In the matter styled George Acevedo v. Fitzgerald Auto Sales and Celia T. Fitzgerald, Plaintiff, George Acevedo, claimed damages stemming from a motor vehicle accident and alleging negligence against the driver, Celia Fitzgerald, and vicarious liability against Fitzgerald Auto Sales. Plaintiff claimed injuries to his neck, low back and left shoulder as a result, and initially demanded $250,000.
Defendants’ sought to have Plaintiff examined by their expert through a Compulsory Medical Examination, which was mutually coordinated and scheduled with Plaintiff and his attorney. After Plaintiff’s failure to appear, Defendants’ obtained an Order on their Motion to Secure a Compulsory Medical Examination. Defendants diligently documented all communications with Plaintiff’s counsel in attempting to set and hold the CME, yet, once again, Plaintiff failed to make himself available for examination. As it was apparent that Plaintiff refused to cooperate in litigation, Defendants filed their Motion to Strike Pleadings. On June 17, 2021, the Honorable Judge Kastrenakes entered an Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike Pleadings, striking Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Dismissing the Case With Prejudice due to multiple intentional and willful violations of Court Orders directing compliance with discovery obligations by the Plaintiff. Read more.
Tallahassee, Defense Verdict, $500,00 sought. Plaintiff was seeking to recover approx. $500,000 in damages at trial however the jury rendered a defense verdict of no liability. Defendant had a proposal for settlement and is moving for attorney’s fees and costs.
Managing Partners, Anthony J. Petrillo, Esq., and Audra M. Bryant, Esq., obtained a defense verdict of no liability in a slip and fall matter styled Cindy Dougherty v. Defendant Retail Store on July 13, 2021. The plaintiff was seeking to recover approximately $500,000 in damages at trial.
This case arises out of an incident occurring on August 20, 2014 at a retail store in Tallahassee, Florida. On that date, while inside the store obtaining her items, the Plaintiff slipped and fell on an oily substance on the floor. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant negligently maintained its premises by allowing an oily substance to accumulate on the floor.
The Plaintiff claimed that she sustained injuries to her hip, shoulder, feet and back resulting in over $200,000 in past medical expenses. The majority of her past economic damages were related to a hip and a shoulder surgery.
The Plaintiff’s theory of liability was that the retail store had actual notice of the condition as it failed to repair a forklift that leaked hydraulic fluid. The Defendant was able to easily disprove this theory and demonstrate that it was pursued with the flimsiest of evidence.
The Defendant moved for directed verdict on causation as to the plaintiff’s hip and shoulder surgeries and for directed verdict on future economic damages. After vigorous argument, the Defendant prevailed on both motions. Resultantly, the Defendant successfully limited the plaintiff to boardable past medical expenses of $18,700 and prohibited the plaintiff’s recovery of any future economic damages. The Defendant also moved for directed verdict on liability and the Court took the motion under advisement. Notably, the Court strongly indicated that the motion for directed verdict on liability would be granted, however, the Court wanted to first obtain the jury’s verdict.
After deliberating for less than 2 hours, the jury sided with the Defendant and rendered a defense verdict. The Defendant previously served a proposal for settlement that was rejected by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant will be filing a motion to recover its attorney’s fees and costs. Read more
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