$______ VERDICT - DOG ATTACK - PLAINTIFF ATTACKED WHILE WALKING IN COMMON AREA OF DEFENDANT CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITY - BITE AND SCRATCH WOUNDS TO LEFT HAND - TORN LABRUM - SURGERY - PERMANENT SCARRING - DEFENDANTS DENY LIABILITY FOR ATTACK AND BRING THIRD-PARTY CLAIM AGAINST PROPERTY OWNERS.

Pages7-8
treated with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair; partial
acromioplasty with ligament release; extensive
debridement and physical therapy.
The plaintiff admitted to “not paying attention” at the
time of her fall. The defendant presented expert testi-
mony that the area where the plaintiff fell was com-
posed of a non-slip surface and would not be
considered “slippery” by industry standards, whether wet
or dry. Additionally, the defendants argued that they
had previously conducted pressure wash cleaning of
the same area on several occasions during the plaintiff’s
6-year tenancy at the apartment complex. The defen-
dant argued that the plaintiff fell due to her own negli-
gence and that the defendant was not liable for the
plaintiff’s damages.
The jury found the defendants 60% negligent and the
plaintiff 40% negligent and awarded gross damages in
the amount of $235,000 broken down as follows:
$205,000 in past medical expenses; $30,000 in past
non-economic damages; and $0 in future non-eco-
nomic damages. After reduction for comparative negli-
gence, the plaintiff’s net recovery was $141,000.
REFERENCE
Brown vs. Batmasian, et al. Case no.
CACCACE19012471; Judge Martin J. Bidwill, 12-16-22.
Attorneys for plaintiff: Lake H. Lytall, III and Trent J.
Swift of Lytal, Reiter, Smith, Ivey & Fronrath in West
Palm Beach, FL. Attorneys for defendant: Jeffrey W.
Johnson and Timothy F. Malin of Johnson Law Group
in Boca Raton, FL.
COMMENTARY
Following the verdict, the defendant moved for directed verdict, ar-
guing that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden based on the tes-
timony presented to the jury. The defendant maintained that the
plaintiff had actual knowledge of the very same condition she com-
plained about, prior to her fall. The defendant further argued that
the plaintiff knew or should have known of the existence of the wa-
ter immediately when she exited her apartment, also prior to her
fall. The defendant asserted that it was undisputed that the plain-
tiff’s knowledge of the alleged condition was equal to or greater
than the defendants’ when she exited her apartment and went
down the stairs prior to her fall. Based on the evidence that was
presented to the jury, the defendants argued they were entitled to
directed verdict notwithstanding the jury verdict as a matter of law.
The plaintiff disputed the defendants’ claims and maintained that
she had no notice of the condition of the stairs being wet before she
stepped on them and slipped. The plaintiff had no prior knowledge
that the stairs were being pressure cleaned with water and a slip-
pery chemical degreaser and there was no warning sign at the top
of the stairs. The plaintiff argued that directed verdict was inappro-
priate in the subject case first because the defendant was request-
ing that the court view the evidence in the light most favorable to
them when, in fact, the evidence should be viewed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff as the non-moving party. When viewed in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence at trial
showed there was no sign warning of wet floors at the top of the
stairs, the plaintiff did not see the stairs were wet until she stepped
on them and slipped, the person doing the pressure cleaning used
water and a slippery chemical degreaser to clean the stairs, and the
plaintiff had no prior knowledge of that fact. Therefore, the plain-
tiff maintained, the defendants were mistaken to suggest that it
was undisputed that the dangerous condition was open and
obvious, or that the plaintiff had prior notice of it.
To the extent that the testimony of the parties’ witnesses was in
conflict, that point further supported the plaintiff’s position that the
issue of negligence was a factual question for the jury and a di-
rected verdict was inappropriate. Likewise, the jury was free to re-
ject the defendants’ witness’ testimony that the wet stairs at the
subject property were not slippery. The defendants’ expert was not
aware that a chemical degreaser, rather than simply water, was
being used and the plaintiff herself testified that the stairs were
slippery. The plaintiff concluded that the defendants’ motion was
an attempt to reargue and relitigate matters presented at trial and
to further attempt to evade the sanctity of the jurors in their role as
finders of fact.
The defendants’ motion was denied.
$172,500 VERDICT – DOG ATTACK – PLAINTIFF ATTACKED WHILE WALKING IN
COMMON AREA OF DEFENDANT CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITY – BITE AND SCRATCH
WOUNDS TO LEFT HAND – TORN LABRUM – SURGERY – PERMANENT SCARRING –
DEFENDANTS DENY LIABILITY FOR ATTACK AND BRING THIRD-PARTY CLAIM
AGAINST PROPERTY OWNERS.
Miami-Dade County, FL
In this dog attack case, the plaintiff asserted that
the defendant residential development knew of a
dangerous dog on its premises and failed to
protect the plaintiff from attack by the dog. The
plaintiff and his dogs were attacked by the subject
dog and suffered significant, permanent injury.
The defendant denied negligence and brought a
third-party claim against the third-party
defendants who owned a house in the defendant
development.
On December 15, 2018, the plaintiff was walking his 2
small dogs in the defendant’s condominium develop-
ment when he was attacked by a Rottweiler. The plaintiff
contended that the defendant controlled, operated, su-
pervised and maintained property located at 11359 SW
232nd Terrace in Miami. The defendant development
owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, a resident of the
subject community, to maintain or control its property in
a reasonably safe condition and to warn of any known
dangerous conditions. Prior to the attack the defendant
had knowledge of the presence of the subject Rott-
SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS 7
Florida Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
Subscribe Now

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT