Trial Verdicts and Results
Plaintiff asked the jury for damages of approx. $14 million - Jury Returned Verdict of $307K
On August 23, 2024, Jacksonville Partners, Zach Brewer and Deana Dunham prevented a nuclear verdict, in a premises liability matter styled Plaintiff v. VyStar Financial Group, LLC. The plaintiff filed suit against defendant, VyStar Financial Group, alleging that Defendant failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn Plaintiff of a hazardous condition about which Defendant knew or should have known.
Plaintiff alleged that, on June 3, 2019, while she was an invitee on Defendant’s premises, Plaintiff entered an elevator which malfunctioned, causing the Plaintiff to fall and sustain injuries. Plaintiff maintained that she was going to the 14th floor and, as she ascended, the elevator started to experience mechanical malfunctions, and then started to descent at a rapid, freefall pace, and suddenly stopped near or on the main level. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff claimed injuries to her neck and back, problems with her memory, and mental health conditions including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.
At trial, the defense presented testimony from three elevator technicians who had worked in the building and inspected the elevator to establish that it would have been impossible for the incident to have occurred as Plaintiff claimed. Specifically, that it would have been impossible for the elevator to have free fallen. The defense also offered testimony from mechanical engineer and Qualified Elevator Inspector, Lawrence Marley, to establish that the elevator came to a controlled stop. Biomechanical engineer, Ming Xiao, established that the force involved in the controlled stop would have been equivalent to the force felt in a half-inch hop off the ground.
During closing arguments, Plaintiff asked the jury for damages of approximately $14 million. The jury deliberated for 4 hours before returning a verdict of $307,000 against Defendant. Read More.
Senior Associate Carissa Gangemi, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice on March 7, 2024, in a Premise Liability and Security Negligence action styled Plaintiff v. Miami-Dade County, Co-Defendant, & Feick Security Corporation. The lawsuit arose out of a shooting incident, possible homicide, that allegedly occurred on January 30, 2021, at the Edison Courts Housing Unit Development in Miami, Florida. Per the Incident Report, Plaintiff suffered a gunshot wound to the knee when her vehicle was struck by gunfire in the intersection of NW 4th Avenue and NW 64th Street in Miami, Florida. Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was negligent, as a security company for the property, in failing to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition against foreseeable criminal activity. Plaintiff also asserted that Defendant was negligent in their hiring, supervision, and retention as to their security guards and, as a result, was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. Miami-Dade County and Feick Security Corporation, entered into a Contract for Security Guard Services for Miami-Dade County Public Housing Facilities on April 1, 2020, and the contract provided specific Guard Locations. Security services for the Edison Courts property was not included in the contract’s initial Guard locations. Furthermore, discovery revealed that Feick’s services were not requested by Miami-Dade County for that specific Housing Development prior to the shooting. Documentation was obtained confirming that Feick had not been contracted until months after the shooting incident. This key information aided Defendant in dismantling Plaintiff’s theory that Feick was negligent in its security services and hiring, supervising, or retention of their guards, with Co-defendant’s counsel eventually confirming that Feick had not been contracted for the Edison Court property at the time of, or prior to, the subject shooting incident. Following this confirmation, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice as to Feick Security Corporation. Read More
Defense Verdict - 4-Day Jury Trial - Plaintiff asked the Jury for $19.3M
On July 18, 2024, Orlando Partners, Juan A. Ruiz and Michael H. Kestenbaum obtained a defense verdict, in a wrongful death auto liability matter styled Personal Representative of the Estate of Decedent v. Marley. The plaintiff filed suit against defendant, Marley, alleging negligence in the wrongful death of Decedent.
Plaintiff alleged that the defendant was operating his vehicle on eastbound Interstate 4 in an unsafe manner leading to a motor vehicle accident, which caused his vehicle to spin and flip. As a result of the vehicle flipping, the decedent, an unbelted rear seat, passenger, was ejected, and killed. The defense, unable to rebut the allegations of negligence, chose to defend this matter on causation as a result of the plaintiff not wearing his seatbelt.
At trial, the defense presented testimony from, John F. Abercrombie, M.D., MS, FACEP, a biomedical expert, who testified that the failure to wear a seatbelt was the approximate cause of the ejection, which was the approximate cause of death. The jury deliberated for 2.5 hours before returning a complete defense verdict. Post trial motions are pending. The defense is entitled to prevailing party costs. Read More.
Four-day jury trial; Plaintiff requested millions in damages - the Jury returned a complete Defense Verdict
On May 17, 2024, Partners, Benjamin Pahl, Esq. and Nora Bailey, Esq., obtained a complete defense verdict after a four-day jury trial in a premises liability matter styled Plaintiffs v. South Florida Fair and W.G. Wade Shows. The lawsuit arose out of a claim by the Plaintiff, an older female, wherein it was alleged that Defendants acted negligently in allowing a stair handrail leading to a portable restroom trailer to exist in a dangerous condition – specifically, Plaintiff claimed there was a paint chip on the railing that poked her left hand, causing her to startle and fall backwards down the stairs, resulting in a tibia/fibula fracture and two surgeries as well as extensive rehabilitation and ongoing attendant care. The Defendants denied liability and asserted that Plaintiff had acted negligently by using the stairs instead of an ADA-accessible restroom next to the trailer, given her left-sided deficits after a stroke approximately eight months prior to the fall at the Defendants’ premises, and further asserted that there was no paint chip or dangerous condition.
At trial, testimony from Defendants’ employees was that there were never any complaints or concerns related to the railing, nor were any repairs or inspections ever requested as to same; an Emergency Medical Technician who had worked at the Fair for 20+ years testified that the Plaintiff’s incident was the only fall at that location to which she had ever responded. The defense was also able to elicit testimony and introduce evidence that the Plaintiff had been in ongoing therapy for difficulties related to the left hand and deficits therein as recently as two weeks before the fall, and was receiving 36 hours per week of attendant care related thereto up through the day of the incident. The Plaintiff admitted she had arrived at the Fair on the day of the incident in a wheelchair and had used a cane when ambulating, but did not utilize either when she chose to take the stairs to the restroom. She relied on a photograph she took of her left pinky several days after the incident to suggest that a cut on the finger was caused by a ‘sharp’ paint chip that felt like ‘an ice pick’ in her hand.
Plaintiffs retained no liability expert but utilized Craig Lichtblau, M.D., as their life care planner. Despite preparing a nearly 300-page “Comprehensive Report,” Dr. Lichtblau admitted on cross-examination by Ms. Bailey that he did not consider the pre-existing stroke related deficits to be relevant to his evaluation of the Plaintiff. He further testified that his own evaluation of the Plaintiff indicated that she could not feel pins or pick up small objects with her left-hand due to weakness and numbness therein, undercutting Plaintiff’s contention that she was poked in that hand which caused her to fall. Nonetheless, Dr. Lichtblau recommended nearly $1.34M in future care for the Plaintiff, which was supported by the testimony of economist Frederick Raffa, Ph.D.
Defendants’ CME physician, Mark Rubenstein, M.D., testified at trial that the Plaintiff was a fall risk with left-sided weakness and numbness and should not have used the stairs that day; he further testified that any need for ongoing care was related to the sequelae from the previous stroke, and not any consequences from the fall. Dr. Rubenstein also walked the jury through multiple notes in the medical records after the fall wherein Plaintiff told her treating physicians she had missed the grab rail and fell, but never made any mention of a dangerous condition.
Over the course of four days, the jury listened to the Plaintiff testify about the devastating impact of the incident and the injuries on her life, as well as to her husband’s testimony in support of his consortium claim, and the testimony of their adult son. Mr. Pahl emphasized in closing that the jury had to use common sense to evaluate the evidence and that the Plaintiffs simply had failed to meet their burden of proof.
Plaintiffs’ counsel asked the jury in closing for an award of $4.67 – $4.91M ($576,854 in past medical expenses; $1,337,633 in future medical expenses; $500,000 past pain and suffering; $2M future pain and suffering; $250-500K consortium claim). After deliberating for about three hours, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict in favor of South Florida Fair and W.G. Wade Shows. Read More.
Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant – our client – Mall negligently maintained its parking lot area and, as a result, was the direct cause of the incident. In arguments, Plaintiff attempted to establish liability based on failure to have additional crosswalks, stops signs and other safety traffic control devices in its parking lot. Nonetheless, in depositions, it was established that the Co-Defendant driver, was at a complete stop prior to making the left turn and was also familiar with the parking lot layout as he had been visiting the Mall since 1987. This key testimony aided in dismantling Plaintiff’s theory that the Mall was negligent in its design of its parking lot, which was the cause of the accident and injuries alleged. The Mall argued that the inclusion of most of the traffic control devices recommended by the Plaintiff’s liability experts would not have altered the outcome of the accident.
Further, Defense expert, Roland Lamb, testified that based on his expertise and experience, the parking lot design was reasonable. Despite naming the driver as a Co-Defendant, Plaintiff's counsel continued to argue that the driver should not bear any responsibility for the accident and solely focused Plaintiff's case on the Mall as the responsible party. Trial partners Jack D. Luks, and Allison I. Janowitz highlighted this fact coupled with their position that the Mall was not negligent in its parking lot design and/or it was not a legal cause of the accident.
Following closing arguments, the jury deliberated for two hours and returned a complete Defense verdict establishing that Defendant Mall and Co-Defendant driver were not the legal cause of loss or damage.
Martindale-Hubbell and martindale.com are registered trademarks, Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings is a trademark and Lawyers.com is a service mark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. AV, BV and CV are registered certification marks and AV Preeminent and BV Distinguished are certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. Copyright 2009 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
by tdburns, llc. - website designer, ft. lauderdale, fl