. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.

ARTICLE ID 158755

$________ GROSS , $________ NET Premises liability - Slippery marble pool deck - Slip and fall while moving furniture - Nerve crush injury to hand injury - RSD - 89% comparative negligence found.

Miami-Dade County, Florida

The plaintiff claimed that the defendants, a property owner and management company, allowed a dangerous slippery condition around a pool deck, causing the plaintiff to slip and fall. The defendant denied that the pool deck was dangerous and argued that the fall was caused by the plaintiff’s own negligence.

The plaintiff, 43 at the time, was in the course and scope of his employment with a moving company. The plaintiff testified that the defendant property manager refused to allow him to deliver the furniture to the pool house through a door from the yard, a less dangerous route. The plaintiff contended that the defendant insisted that the delivery be made by the path around the pool. The plaintiff contended that he was required to walk on a wet, slippery marble pool deck, which caused him to fall with a heavy chest falling on top of him.

The plaintiff’s physician testified that the plaintiff sustained a nerve crush injury to his hand resulting in reflex sympathetic dystrophy as a result of the fall. The plaintiff underwent 17 surgical stellate ganglion block injections to his neck under anesthesia to alleviate pain. The plaintiff claimed that he is now permanently disabled from employment.

The defendant claimed that the plaintiff could have used the door from the yard, if he had wanted, but instead the plaintiff chose the more dangerous way around the pool and chose not to use a furniture dolly. The defense also contended that the pool deck had been covered with a slip-resistant coating and was not dangerous. In addition, the defense disputed the plaintiff’s claim that he is permanently disabled from employment.

The jury found the defendants 11% negligent and the plaintiff 89% comparatively negligent. The plaintiff was awarded $________ in damages reduced to a net award of $________. The jury awarded the plaintiff past and future medical expenses and lost income, but did not award any damages for past or future pain and suffering. The plaintiff filed a post-trial motion for additur and for new trial. Before the post-trial motions were ruled upon, the parties settled the case for a confidential sum.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.