$______ VERDICT - INSURANCE OBLIGATION - UNDERINSURED DRIVER - PLAINTIFF INVOLVED IN REAR END COLLISION WITH UNDERINSURED DRIVER AND MAKES CLAIM FOR DAMAGES WITH DEFENDANT INSURER - 2 LUMBAR HERNIATIONS; AGGRAVATION OF PRIOR CERVICAL INJURY; PERSISTENT, CHRONIC HEADACHES AND INJURIES TO LEFT SHOULDER - LEFT SHOULDER SURGERY; MEDIAL BRANCH BLOCK; RADIOFREQUENCY ABLATION - SURGICAL SCARRING.

• Pages: 7-9

could be on the floor after cleaning and the defen-

dant’s employees placed caution cones and paper

warnings on the floor as an additional reminder to use

care. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff

misstepped and fell due to no negligence by the

defendant or water on the floor.

The jury found the defendant and plaintiff both negligent

and assigned 90% negligence to the defendant and

10% to the plaintiff. The jury awarded gross damages of

$665,000 broken down as follows: $240,000 in past

medical expenses; $100,000 in future medical ex-

penses; $100,000 in past non-economic damages;

$200,000 in future non-economic damages and

$25,000 in loss of consortium by the plaintiff’s husband.

After reduction for comparative negligence, the plaintiff

recovered net damages of $598,500.

REFERENCE

Blakely vs. Stanley Steemer International, Inc. Case no.

CACE19000255; Judge Fabienne E. Fahnestock, 10-18-

21.

Attorney for plaintiff: Joseph C. Madalon of Madalon

Law in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Attorney for defendant:

David M. Tarlow of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer,

P.A. in Fort Lauderdale, FL.

COMMENTARY

Following the verdict, the defendant filed a motion for judgment

notwithstanding the verdict. The defendant argued that negligence

can not be inferred from the mere happening of an accident, citing

Winn Dixie v. White, 675 So.2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In the

subject case, the defendant maintained that it was purely specula-

tive for the jury to conclude that the defendant was negligent in the

way it performed its rug cleaning and that the plaintiff’s slip and

fall was the result of the defendant’s failing to clean the floor as

opposed to, for example, the plaintiff simply misstepping. The de-

fendant claimed it was undisputed from the evidence that water

was being used to clean the plaintiff’s area rug.

The defendant’s industry expert testified that you can dry the area

with a mop or towel, but it is not reasonable to assume that an

area will immediately become dry. The defendant’s employees had

not yet set up the blowers for drying and it takes time for them to

dry the area. The defendant noted that the plaintiff failed to offer

evidence that the defendant was negligent in maintaining the area

where it was performing the rug cleaning. The defendant argued

the plaintiff stacked inference upon a debatable inference from cir-

cumstantial evidence in arguing that the mere fact that she fell

proved that there had to be a foreign substance on the floor that

precipitated her fall.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendant’s mo-

tion for directed verdict on all of the issues raised in its post-trial

motion was already denied and that the defendant made no new

arguments in its new motion. The plaintiff asserted that she pre-

sented a plethora of evidence as to the defendant’s negligent fail-

ure to correct a dangerous situation that it had created by leaving

water deposited around the edges of the area rug that was on a

tile floor. The plaintiff argued that, where a defendant’s conduct

creates a foreseeable zone of risk, the law generally will recognize

a duty by the defendant either to lessen the risk or see that suffi-

cient precautions are taken to protect others from the harm that

the risk poses, citing Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So.2d 33, 35 (Fla.

1983). As was addressed at trial and during arguments on the de-

fendant’s directed verdict motion, not only was there testimony at

trial from the corporate representative, but also from the 2 em-

ployees who were in the plaintiff’s home that day. That testimony

established that the area rug cleaning process “always” deposits

water around the edges of the rug being cleaned.

The plaintiff also maintained that the testimony at trial established

that the water had only been wiped or mopped up on 3 of the 4

sides with the fourth side being where the plaintiff fell. Thus, the

plaintiff argued, the defendant’s conduct created a foreseeable

zone of risk. With regard to the defendant’s arguments about in-

sufficient evidence as to what caused the plaintiff’s fall, the plaintiff

pointed to notes from the plaintiff’s visit to the emergency room

immediately after the incident which indicated that the plaintiff re-

ported that she slipped and fell on wet tile and further included the

plaintiff’s statement that she had just had her rugs professionally

cleaning and during the process, water was left on her floor and

that she fell in the puddle of water on her left hip. The plaintiff

maintained that the defendant’s alternative explanation that the

plaintiff just misstepped, was speculative considering the entirety of

the evidence and medical records presented by the plaintiff.

The court denied the defendant’s motion.

$562,818 VERDICT – INSURANCE OBLIGATION – UNDERINSURED DRIVER – PLAINTIFF

INVOLVED IN REAR END COLLISION WITH UNDERINSURED DRIVER AND MAKES

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES WITH DEFENDANT INSURER – 2 LUMBAR HERNIATIONS;

AGGRAVATION OF PRIOR CERVICAL INJURY; PERSISTENT, CHRONIC HEADACHES

AND INJURIES TO LEFT SHOULDER – LEFT SHOULDER SURGERY; MEDIAL BRANCH

BLOCK; RADIOFREQUENCY ABLATION – SURGICAL SCARRING.

Pinellas County, FL

In this case, the plaintiff, a 53-year-old

accounting clerk, asserted that the tortfeasor

driver struck her vehicle from behind with such

force that it caused significant, permanent injury.

The plaintiff settled with the tortfeasors in the

amount of $100,000 and filed the subject lawsuit

to recover damages under her underinsured

motorist insurance policy provision. The defendant

stipulated liability but contested the plaintiff’s

damages.

On December 6, 2017, the plaintiff was traveling north

on Route 19 in the left lane, approaching the intersec-

tion with Continental Drive in Holiday. The tortfeasor was

driving a vehicle which was owned by the co-tortfeasor,

traveling behind the plaintiff. The plaintiff maintained

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS 7

Florida Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now