$______ GROSS VERDICT - PREMISES LIABILITY - NEGLIGENT SECURITY - PLAINTIFF CLAIMS DEFENDANT FAILED TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR PATRONS OF ITS RESTAURANT/BAR RESULTING IN PLAINTIFF BEING ATTACKED WITH GLASS BY PATRON - LOSS OF VISION IN LEFT EYE; PERMANENT FACIAL SCARRING - DEFENDANT DENIES IT COULD HAVE FORESEEN NEED FOR SECURITY AND ARGUES PLAINTIFF PROVOKED ATTACK.

• Pages: 7-9

On December 23, 2021, the plaintiff filed a detailed response and

opposition to the defendant’s motions wherein all the dispositive

facts were laid out – confirming that the defendant’s position was

unsubstantiated in law and in fact. To date, the plaintiff claimed,

defendant’s counsel had yet to withdraw the defendant’s motions,

and in fact, set them for hearing. The plaintiff argued that the de-

fendant’s claims were unsubstantiated, and the defendant’s time to

plead was far gone. Plaintiff’s counsel put forth that defendant’s

counsel’s complete disregard for the facts and existing case law,

and her continued attempt to mislead the Court was sanctionable

under Florida Statute §57.105. Therefore, the plaintiff requested

sanctions by way of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for having

to defend against the defendant’s spurious Motions.

A hearing on the defendant’s motions is set for February, 2022.

$961,112 GROSS VERDICT – PREMISES LIABILITY – NEGLIGENT SECURITY – PLAINTIFF

CLAIMS DEFENDANT FAILED TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR PATRONS OF ITS

RESTAURANT/BAR RESULTING IN PLAINTIFF BEING ATTACKED WITH GLASS BY

PATRON – LOSS OF VISION IN LEFT EYE; PERMANENT FACIAL SCARRING –

DEFENDANT DENIES IT COULD HAVE FORESEEN NEED FOR SECURITY AND ARGUES

PLAINTIFF PROVOKED ATTACK.

Volusia County, FL

In this premises liability case, the plaintiff patron

asserted that the defendant bar/restaurant failed

to provide adequate security resulting in injury to

the plaintiff. The defendant denied liability and

contended the plaintiff was at fault for his own

injuries.

The plaintiff was involved in a physical altercation on

September 27, 2017 at the defendant restaurant/bar,

resulting in injury to the plaintiff. At approximately 1:45

a.m., the plaintiff’s friend punched another patron on an

outside deck, thus starting a physical brawl. The plaintiff

eventually ran outside and assisted in breaking up the

fight. There were no “bouncers” or independent security

personnel on staff at the time of the incident. The plain-

tiff returned to the bar after the fight and, at a later

point, was struck in the face by a patron of the bar.

As a result of the incident, the plaintiff suffered an injury

to his left eye, loss of vision, and permanent facial scar-

ring. The plaintiff was taken to the hospital by ambu-

lance and has undergone multiple procedures,

ultimately resulting in his left eye being rendered legally

blind.

The defendant maintained the plaintiff was not an

invitee of the defendant at the time he was injured, and

that plaintiff was under the influence of an alcoholic

beverage to the extent his normal faculties were im-

paired and his impairment caused or contributed to his

being 50% or more at fault for his injuries. The plaintiff

admitted to consuming at least 3 beers in the hours

leading up to the physical altercation. Instead of leaving

after the fight was resolved, the plaintiff remained at the

premises, became aggressive, and was ultimately

struck in his face, at or around his left eye, with a cocktail

glass, by a female patron.

The issues at trial were 1) whether the plaintiff was an

invitee at the defendant’s premises at the time of his in-

jury; 2) whether the defendant was negligent; 3) whether

the defendant’s negligence was the legal cause of in-

jury or damages to the plaintiff; 4) whether the plaintiff

was himself negligent 5) whether the plaintiff was under

the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent his

normal faculties were impaired and the plaintiff’s impair-

ment caused him to be 50% or more at fault for his inju-

ries; and 5) the amount of the plaintiff’s injury, damage,

or loss.

The jury found that the plaintiff was an invitee of the de-

fendant; that the defendant was negligent and that the

defendant’s negligence was a legal cause of the plain-

tiff’s damages; and that the plaintiff was also negligent

in causing his damages. The jury found the defendant

40% liable and the plaintiff 70% liable and awarded

gross damages of $961,112 broken down as follows:

$211,112 in past medical expenses; $400,000 in past

non-economic damages; and $350,000 in future non-

economic damages. Reduced for comparative negli-

gence, the plaintiff’s net recovery was $321,162.

REFERENCE

Bates vs. Airport Restaurant, LLC. Case no. 2019 10300

CIDL; Judge Kathryn D. Weston, 10-15-21.

Attorney for plaintiff: Todd J. Michaels of The

Haggard Law Firm, P.A. in Coral Gables, FL. Attorney

for plaintiff: W. Hampton Johnson, IV of Johnson,

Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A. in

Fort Lauderdale, FL. Attorneys for defendant: Scott A.

Shelton and Bartley G. Vickers of Cole, Scott &

Kissane,P.A.inOrlando,FL.

COMMENTARY

Following the verdict, the defendant moved for a new trial on the

arguments that the defendant was prejudiced by being prevented

from arguing that the plaintiff’s impairment as a result of alcohol

caused him to be 50% or more at fault for his injuries, even while

the jury found plaintiff to be 60% at fault. The defendant main-

tained it was further prejudiced by the extent of crime data permit-

ted to be presented to the jury and plaintiff’s counsel’s

representations to the jury that the police reports were true and ac-

curate and not presented for the purpose of notice. The result of

plaintiff’s counsel’s representation unfairly prejudiced the defen-

dant and created an improper implication or inference of the

defendant’s restaurant being dangerous.

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS 7

Florida Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now