Tampa Bay Personal Injury Lawyer - Property Owner's Liability (Slip & Fall) - Most Popular

Woman Alleges she was Fired from Wal-Mart Following Slip-and-Fall Testimony

Chrissie Cole — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:18:18 GMT

A Wal-Mart employee, who testified in a slip-and-fall case, believes her testimony led to her termination. Now she is suing Wal-Mart, her former employer, for $1 million in damages.

The former employee, a witness in a personal injury case against Wal-Mart, alleges she was directed to lie under oath and commit perjury. She claims she called Wal-Mart maintenance regarding a substance on the floor, but they did not respond causing someone suffer injury when they slipped.

According to legal documents, Wal-Mart's attorney told her to say she had not called maintenance prior to the incident.

On May 11-14, she called in sick to work and claims she was given permission to miss work. When she returned ten days later, she was fired. The complaint states she was terminated for missing work without permission. But, she believes she was fired for telling the truth during her testimony.

The lawsuit seeks damages in excess of $1 million for lost wages, mental anguish, humiliation and embarrassment.

For more information on this topic, please visit our Slip and Fall Injury section.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Man Suing Wal-Mart After Slip and Fall in Restroom

Chrissie Cole — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:36:41 GMT

A man who alleges he suffered injuries after a slip and fall accident in a Granite City Wal-Mart restroom, has filed a lawsuit in excess of $50,000 in damages.

The lawsuit, filed August 20, in Madison County Circuit Court, alleges that on April 17, Wal-Mart allowed water to accumulate on the men's restroom floor causing him to slip-and-fall in the area he had to use.

According to the complaint, Wal-Mart negligently failed to inspect the area where the water accumulated, failed to warn of the water, failed to inspect the men's restroom which allowed water to accumulate and negligently allowed water to accumulate in the area near the men's restroom and the area Smith "had to use."

He claims the accident made him sore, sick, lame and disabled due to extensive injuries he suffered to his fingers, hip, neck, back and head.

The suit also claims his injuries caused him to experience pain and suffering in addition to excessive medical bills.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Teen Killed in Tiger Attack at Zoo

Shannon Weidemann — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:31:27 GMT

A 17-year-old boy was attacked and killed by a tiger at the San Francisco Zoo on Christmas Day. Somehow the 350-pound Siberian Tiger was able to escape from it's enclosure. The tiger attack happened shortly after the zoo closed.

Although some zoo officials speculate the threesome may have teased the tiger, San Francisco police Lt. Leroy Lindo said police currently have no reason to believe the three men taunted the animal prior to the attack, which happened shortly after the zoo's 5 p.m. closing time.
Dozens of visitors and some employees were still inside the zoo at the time.

Doctors have reported that the two other victims are expected to make a full recovery. It is unknown how the tiger escaped. The police were called and shot and killed the tiger before it could harm anyone else. The zoo also had a team searching for the escaped tiger. Last December the same tiger attacked a zoo keeper during a public feeding session.

If you would like to learn more about premises liability, please visit InjuryBoard's Property Owner's Liability information page.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann

Handicapped Ramps Can Be Dangerous

Bob Carroll — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 05:58:38 GMT

Lately, I have noticed more frequent injuries occurring when handicapped access features of buildings and parking areas are improperly constructed. One example, is the ramp that far exceeds the maximum slope specified in building codes. Another is the lack of safety barriers which is the situation in this report from the Columbia Daily Tribune.

Lawsuit filed after injury at downtown Walgreens

A local man has filed a lawsuit against Walgreen Co. for injuries he got from a slip during a shopping trip.
In December, Earl Lundgren was walking toward the entrance of the downtown Walgreens at 222 E. Broadway when he stumbled off a concrete embankment near a wheelchair ramp and fell about 3 feet, according to a lawsuit filed last month in Boone County Circuit Court.
The lawsuit says Walgreens was negligent because a barrier required under city building codes didn't exist at the place where Lundgren fell.
John Sudduth, building regulation supervisor in the city's office of protective inspections, said building codes would have required such a barrier, but the report on the building's final inspection on May 2, 2002, did not disclose any issues.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bob Carroll

Department Store Dummies On A Rampage

Bob Carroll — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 06:25:43 GMT

Department store dummies have caused their share of injuries, believe it or not.

After reading this compilation of dummy lawsuits you may be more wary of these supposedly inanimate objects as you walk the aisles of your favorite store.

"Attack of the Mannequins" might sound like a horror film title, but a Southern California woman insists it could be a documentary.
Diana Newton sued J.C. Penney Co. last month after being thwacked on the head by a department store dummy.
The 51-year-old from Westminster, about a dozen miles east of Long Beach, said she was ambushed by a legless female mannequin at the Westminster Mall. It was an altercation that left her with a bloodied scalp, a cracked tooth, recurring shoulder pain and numbness in her fingers, she said.
The alleged attack was the latest in a string of mannequin mayhem reports nationwide.
"There are a slew of lawsuits like this," said mannequin manufacturer Barry Rosenberg, who joked that stores should run background checks on dummies before letting them mingle with shoppers.
Most of the cases involve mannequins toppling onto customers, but an Indiana woman claimed she caught herpes from the lips of an American Red Cross CPR training dummy. She dropped the lawsuit after further tests revealed she did not have the disease, according to news reports.
The Westminster Mall melee happened last summer in the women's department at JCPenney. Newton wanted to buy a blouse, but the only one in her size was worn by a mannequin.
When a sales clerk tried to remove the garment, the dummy's arm flew off and struck Newton's head, according to her lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court.
In 1993, a Minnesota woman was knocked unconscious by a falling mannequin at a Dayton's department store, according to the Star Tribune newspaper in Minneapolis. Although she did not sue, others have, including a Florida woman who collected $175,000 after a faceless Macy's dummy fell onto her neck and reportedly injured a spinal disc.
A Canadian shopper won a $330,000 verdict after a Gap store mannequin landed on her head in Vancouver. The victim, Elizabeth Ball, apparently was jinxed when it came to store displays. A few years earlier, while shopping at a lighting store, she was beaned by a falling chandelier, according to the Canadian Press.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bob Carroll

Wal-Mart Sued Over Cart

Shannon Weidemann — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:36:36 GMT

A woman has filed a premises liability lawsuit against Wal-Mart due to the placement of a push/pull cart in the store. She alleges that she fell due to a push/pull cart that she could not see.

According to the suit, Wal-Mart failed to keep its aisles clear of items that could cause a fall, and the cart in question was placed in an unsafe area "adjacent to or underneath a table of plants," which could be difficult for passing customers to see.
As a result of Wal-Mart's failure to warn of the danger or remove the cart from the hazardous area, the complaint alleges, Sullivan "fell onto a push/pull cart, through no fault of her own."

The plantiff is asking for damages related to injuries sustained to her arm and shoulder. Wal-Mart has not issued a comment in the case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann

She Needed A Ramp & A Rollator

Bob Carroll — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 05:43:52 GMT

"A rollator is basically a standard walker with tires attached. Unlike a regular walker, a rollator doesn't involve the lift that a normal walker requires. Makes walking a smoother process. A rollator however requires that the user be stable enough to not let it get away from them since it has wheels."

A curb and a short patch of grass were hazardous conditions for my client. Because of her medical condition they might as well have been a 10 foot wall. We are fortunate to live in times when ramps are commonplace and even walkers have wheels. Now, all we need to do is buy them and use them. Of course, that assumes the condominium association complies wtih the law on accessibility.

You may never have heard of a rollator. Neither had I. But, while preparing for an important hearing in a case I came across a picture and description of one at Rollators and Wheelchairs .

"A rollator is basically a standard walker with tires attached. Unlike a regular walker, a rollator doesn't involve the lift that a normal walker requires."

My case involved a serious injury resulting in death from a fall at a condominium building. The injured woman was handicapped and trying to walk with a cane. She died because her "home" was dangerous to her. A curb and a short patch of grass were hazardous conditions for my client. Because of her medical condition they might as well have been a 10 foot wall.

The condominium development did not have proper ramps for its residents from the parking area to the front doors of the individual units despite the specific request of my client for a "reasonable accommodation" under the Federal Fair Housing Act.

A condominium resident agrees to be governed by an association on certain matters, such as, the maintenance and construction of the common areas of the project. These include the parking areas and walkways. A resident-owner cannot simply build a ramp or correct a hazard in the common areas.

We are fortunate to live in times when ramps are becoming commonplace and even walkers have wheels. Now, all we need to do is buy them and use them. Of course, that assumes the condominium association complies wtih the law on accessibility.

As I reviewed the facts of the case and the available materials on ramps and rollators I could see in my mind how my client could have easily and safely traversed the short distance to her residence using a ramp.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bob Carroll

Unplanned Exit From Parking Garage At Second Floor Level

Bob Carroll — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 06:49:05 GMT

See if you have the same question I do after reading this amazing story:

Woman's car plunges 40 feet

BILOXI - A Vancleave woman is thankful to be alive after plunging from the second story of a parking garage in her car. It happened at the Beau Rivage Resort and Casino in Biloxi.
"The impact spun her vehicle around and she backed through the wall and flipped over and landed about 40 feet down," said Sgt. Jackie Rhodes with the Biloxi Police Department.
Johnson's jeep plunged backwards, falling two stories to the ground.
So, how did this happen? Casino officials say Johnson lost control of her car when she hit the gas instead of the brakes.
Unbelievably, Johnson walked away with just a few minor scratches. Police say her airbags helped save her life. Also, Johnson was wearing her seatbelt.

My question is why didn't the wall of the garage prevent the jeep from exiting the building? Isn't it reasonable to assume that sooner or later a car is going to hit the wall? If the wall is only designed to keep the rain out of the garage I do not believe it was properly designed or constructed as part of a parking garage.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bob Carroll

The Florida Body Of Water Rule

Bob Carroll — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 10:15:23 GMT

If a young child drowns in a lake, is the owner of the body of water liable? The owner of a body of water is not liable merely because a child may be too young or of insufficient intelligence to understand the open and obvious danger of the water; the responsibility for the care of such children remains with their parents and caretakers.

The body of water cases in the State of Florida are summarized by the recent opinion in GARY KENLEY v. INWOOD PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INC., 4th District, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D1739a.

By summary judgment, the trial court determined that defendant could not legally be held liable in money damages for a child who fell from a dock on a seawall into an open body of water covering sharp rocks. Among other things, plaintiff alleged that the property owner was negligent in failing to erect safety barriers and warnings. In affirming, we reject the father's contention that the "open and obvious" doctrine as applied to bodies of water is not applicable when the victim is a young child.
The outcome in this case is yet another result of the rule applied in the line of cases represented by Saga Bay Property Owners Ass'n v. Askew, 513 So.2d 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). There the parents of a six year old child who drowned in an artificial lake near their home brought an action against the owners of the residential development in which the lake was located, alleging that the owners were negligent in failing to fence the area. The Third District held that the owners could not be held liable because "an owner of a natural or artificial body of water has no duty to fence it." 513 So.2d at 693. The court reasoned:
"The fundamental proposition that drowning is a risk inherent in any body of water leads to some equally fundamental legal principles. The owner of a body of water is not liable merely because a child may be too young or of insufficient intelligence to understand the open and obvious danger of the water; the responsibility for the care of such children remains with their parents and caretakers. To shift the responsibility to the lake owner -- by virtue of ownership alone -- is to unreasonably require the owner to fill the lake or fence it in order to guard against being held liable." [e.s.]
We see no way around these "body of water" cases. Florida is planted thick with masses of water, large and small, many touching towns, cities and residential developments from the very western tip of the Panhandle to the outermost island in the Keys. What the law might require for one lake or canal or river or pond must inevitably apply to all of them. The body of water rule has been around for more than a half-century. Any change or abandonment of the rule would have far-reaching effects in this state. Even though one might advocate a rule protecting young children who fall or walk into such bodies, it is up to the Legislature to make such a change.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bob Carroll

John's Pass Boardwalk Dangerous For Pedestrians

Bob Carroll — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:17:18 GMT

The purpose of a boardwalk is to provide a pleasant place for pedestrians to stroll. When a boardwalk becomes so dangerous for pedestrians that caution signs are necessary, some repairs are needed immediately. The John's Pass boardwalk is the proverbial "accident waiting to happen" - when it does happen there will be legal liability for the injuries caused. Tampa Bay's 10 News tells the story:

Madeira Beach, Florida - John's Pass has scenic views, but strolling along the boardwalk can get dangerous. Twenty-five-year-old warped, uneven boards make for difficult walking.
Jeff Gibeault has a front row seat from his restaurant on the boardwalk.
Jeff Gibeault, Owner of Tom and Jerry's:
"I have seen people do headers, and take a pretty nasty fall."
Mayor Charles Parker is preparing caution signs that will go up in the next few weeks. And he's working to determine how extensive the repairs need to be.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bob Carroll