$______ 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.

• Pages: 7-8

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