08 August

Sticky

Premise Liability Claims and Case Example of Slip on Uneven Floors

In premises liability cases, the plaintiff must show the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition on its premises, the defendant owed a duty to protect the plaintiff from the dangerous condition, the defendant breached that duty, there was a causal connection between the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's fall, and the plaintiff suffered damages as a result. “[A] business owner owes two ‘separate and distinct' duties to business invitees: ‘1) to warn of concealed dangers which are or should be known to the owner and which are unknown to the invitee and cannot be discovered through...

18 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Ruling on a Privilege Objection

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

When a party receives a discovery request, the party may assert an objection under a privilege such as the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. If a trial court orders the production of privileged materials, the appropriate appellate mechanism is to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. Brinkmann v. Petro Welt Trading, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1644a (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). Notably, a party is not “required to provide a privilege log when first responding to the requests for production and that the typical procedure was to hear the motion to compel and then to require a privilege log before the...

11 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Discussion on the Difference Between Replacement Cost Value and Fair Market Value

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

This post discusses an interesting, but fairly complex decision dealing with the difference between replacement cost value and fair market value (actual cost value). The decision also discusses the set-off when suing a defendant after being paid the replacement cost value limit under the policy. In Five Solas, Inc. v. Ram Realty Services, LLC, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1255a (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), a brick wall collapsed falling on a neighboring building damaging the building and rendering it untenantable. The owner of the building had a replacement cost value property insurance policy with a liability limit and deductible. The insurer paid the liability limit...

20 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Venue for Defamatory Social Media Post

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A defamatory social media post can lead to…you guessed it…a defamation claim asserted against the author of the post. Think about this the next time you post something on social media for the world to see. Once you post something on social media, there are many persons that receive and read the post. A question becomes where is the right venue to sue someone for a defamatory social media posting. The recent decision in Lowery v. McBee, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1337b (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) answered this question. In this case, the plaintiff sued the defendant for posting a defamatory post on...

06 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Demonstrating the Difficult Burden in PIERCING the Corporate Veil

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Trying to pierce the corporate veil to go after principals/owners/members is extremely difficult. Although parties make a run at such arguments, this by no means diminishes the difficulty of actually prevailing on the arguments. In order to pierce the corporate a veil, a party has to prove three elements: (1) the person dominated and controlled the company to such an extent that the company had no existence independence of the person, and the company was the mere instrumentality or alter-ego of the person; (2) the person used the company’s corporate form fraudulently or for an improper purpose; and (3) the person’s fraudulent or improper...

30 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Vicarious Liability and the Going and Coming Rule

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

When is an employer vicariously liable to a third-party for the conduct of its employees? “In Florida, an employer is vicariously liable for an employee's tortious conduct where the conduct occurs within the scope of the employment.” An employee's “[c]onduct is within the scope of employment if it occurs substantially within authorized time and space limits, and it is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master.” Indoneisia Peterson v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1248a (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (internal citations omitted). Is an employer liable for conduct of its employees driving to and from work? The answer...

16 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Courts are not Here to Rewrite Bargained for Contractual Provisions

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

“Courts cannot disregard agreed-upon, contractual provisions between parties. To do so would be to strike the…[contractual] obligations from the contract ‘by way of judicial fiat and the bargained-for contractual terms would be rendered surplusage.’” Peoples Trust Ins. Co. v. Amaro, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1025a (3d DCA 2021). Courts are not here to rewrite negotiated contracts between the parties when, after-the-fact, one of the parties realizes they don’t like the terms of the contract. Doing so would be rendering certain terms or language as surplusage or unilaterally striking terms that had been bargained. Frankly, that would not be fair and defeat the very...

08 May

0 Comments

Sticky

A Defamation Claim of a Public Figure

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Stating a defamation claim of a public figure is different and more rigorous than stating a defamation claim of a private figure. Florida employs a two-step process to determine if a person is a public figure: “First, the court must determine whether there is a public controversy. Second, the court must…determine whether the plaintiff played a sufficiently central role in the instant controversy to be considered a public figure for purposes of that controversy.” Reardon v. WPLG, LLC, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D836a, n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (internal quotations and citations omitted). To assert a claim for defamation of a public figure, a...

02 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Civil Theft has a Rigorous Burden of Proof

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Florida has a cause of action known as civil theft. It is a statutory cause of action under Florida Statute s. 772.11 (referenced at the bottom of this article) that, just like criminal theft, requires a party to prove criminal intent with clear and convincing evidence. See Bailey v. Covington, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D776a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“To establish a claim for civil theft, a party must prove 1) that a conversion has taken place and 2) that the accused party acted with criminal intent. Such intent must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”) (internal citation omitted). See also United...

25 April

0 Comments

Sticky

There can be a Winner for Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees when Both Parties Lose

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

From reviewing prior articles on attorney’s fees, you know that to be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees, particularly under a contractual based claim, a party needs to prevail on the significant issues in the case. What if a plaintiff has asserted a claim against a defendant and a defendant has a asserted a claim against the plaintiff and both parties LOSE on their affirmative claims? Can a party still be deemed to prevail on the significant issues in the case? That answer is yes based on the holding by the Second District Court of Appeals in Carrollwood...