terry's takes
Filtered by category: directed verdictMarch 25, 2024
5th dca, directed verdict, premises liability, slip and fall, transitory foreign substanceDoty v. Dolgen Corp, LLC d/b/a Dollar General
In this slip-and-fall case, Dollar General’s motion for directed verdict fell “far short.” One employee brought outdoor displays inside the store to get them out of the rain. She put out a wet-floor sign near the displays. When the rain stopped, a different employee brought the displays back outside and removed the wet floor sign. Plaintiff entered the store and slipped on a puddle of water inside the store. Dollar General argued that it had no constructive or actual notice of the water puddle, but a business owner has “actual knowledge” of a dangerous condition when the owner or one of its agents “knows of or creates the dangerous condition.” Here, employees created the condition by bringing the wet displays inside and then by taking away the wet floor sign. The jury’s verdict in plaintiff’s favor was affirmed.
read moreMay 12, 2023
6th dca, causation, directed verdict, negligenceLancheros v. Burke
In this case, Burke sued Lancheros and VL Auto Transport, Inc., for injuries from a car accident. The defendants admitted fault, but contested whether the accident caused Burke's back injury, arguing it was a pre-existing condition. Although expert testimony supported Burke’s claim that the accident caused temporary back soreness, the trial court granted a directed verdict on causation, removing that question from the jury. The DCA reversed, citing that the jury could still question causation due to Burke's delayed treatment and prior back issues. This allowed the jury to reject expert testimony based on conflicting evidence about the injury's cause.
read moreApril 1, 2023
5th dca, directed verdict, negligence, non economic damagesCooper v. Gonzalez
In this case, the Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed issues of negligence, expert testimony, and non-economic damages. After Cooper rear-ended Gonzalez, they disputed the extent and permanence of her injuries, with the court ultimately ruling that Gonzalez’s directed verdict on permanent injury was improper due to conflicting evidence. The DCA reversed and remanded for a third trial, emphasizing that a permanent anatomical change alone does not meet Florida’s statutory definition of a permanent injury.
read moreContact Us
Our Promise
Aggressive Litigation. Honest Representation. Dedicated Communication. Respect and Compassion.
