Wicker Smith’s Post

Here's this week's question: "My mom was hit on the head by a ladder that was resting against the wall at a grocery store. We got an incident report, and it was caught on camera. She has had a lot of neck pain since. Would we be able to get any compensation if we haven’t done anything about it in 3 months?" Yes! You have up to 2 years from when the accident occurred to take legal action. That is the statute of limitations in Florida for personal injuries (with a few exceptions). Having that incident report and camera footage can make for a more solid case in your hands. And remember that hiring a lawyer DOES NOT mean you have to file a lawsuit yet. Before you take that step, you can try to settle the case directly with the grocery store responsible for your accident/injury. Call 877-STEINLAW Visit Steinlaw.com #injurylawyer #injuryattorney #accidentlawyer #accidentattorney #personalinjurylaw

Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal issued an opinion this week discussing an important nuance for proving liability in a slip-and-fall personal injury case. Under Florida law, a plaintiff must show that a business had actual or constructive notice of a liquid on the floor. The mere presence of a liquid on a floor is not enough to establish constructive notice, so there must be additional evidence that creates a permissible inference of the business's constructive knowledge. Florida's caselaw refers to such additional evidence as "plus" facts. The presence of dirt, wheel marks, or footprints in a liquid are often sufficient plus facts to make the business's constructive knowledge a question of fact for the jury. However, under the specific evidence in this case, a store employee testified that he walked near the area of the incident less than 10 minutes before the plaintiff fell, and there was no liquid on the floor at that time. Store video showed a multitude of customers standing, walking, and pushing carts through the exact spot where the liquid was later found. Thus, the Fifth DCA concluded that any of these customers could have spilled the liquid in the time before the plaintiff's fall. Therefore, a witness's testimony that the water appeared to have footprints and wheel marks in it could not support a permissible evidence that the liquid had been on the floor so long that the store could be charged with constructive notice. As a result, a summary judgment entered for the store was affirmed.

A “vexatious litigant” is someone who persistently files lawsuits, often without merit, to harass or subdue an opponent. These individuals may repeatedly bring cases to court, appeal unfavorable decisions, or file frivolous motions, all with the intention of causing annoyance, delay, or expense to the other party. Courts often impose restrictions on vexatious litigants to prevent them from abusing the legal system. This can include requiring them to obtain permission before filing any new lawsuits, sometimes referred to as a “prefiling order.” These restrictions are designed to protect the judicial process from being clogged with meritless cases and to prevent the abuse of legal proceedings for personal vendettas. At the Public Viewing Terminal in your local Court House just keying it the vexatious litigants name will display the people or businesses they are suing. From Hospitals to Grocery stores it’s all for public viewing. Often the profits are shared with family or friends. We need to report these type of crimes to the authorities.

What does a loaf of bread tell you about the rise of class action lawsuits? Read my latest news analysis for the International Bar Association to find out!

A judge has dismissed key design defect claims in the Onewheel litigation but allowed allegations of misleading safety claims to proceed. This decision enables the case against Future Motion to continue. Read more about the ongoing litigation and its implications. #Onewheel #ClassAction #ProductLiability #LegalNews #FutureMotion

A huge shoutout to our very own Raed Abboo, Partner at our Farmington Hills, Michigan office, for his recent successes in Oakland County and Wayne County Circuit Courts. In a recent case, the plaintiff alleged negligence and breach of duty, attempting to hold our clients accountable for the criminal actions of a third party, despite the absence of any foreseeable imminent threat to the Plaintiff before the incident. Raed compellingly argued that the high standard applied in these cases is grounded in public policy, which aims to encourage businesses to establish themselves in underserved communities. Imposing excessive liability on merchants and landlords would contradict this policy, ultimately harming the very communities that need these businesses the most. The judge concurred, acknowledging the lack of foreseeability and affirming that our clients could not have predicted or controlled the criminal conduct. The court also agreed that the merchant acted appropriately by immediately involving the police upon becoming aware of the threat. The outcome? All counts were dismissed with prejudice. Earlier this month, Raed took on another challenging case involving an unlicensed and uninsured driver of an unlawfully taken vehicle who caused an accident. Once again, Raed's legal research finding precedent that disqualified the plaintiff on multiple grounds, as well as his strong stance on public policy, prevailed. Raed argued that rewarding reckless behavior by such drivers who could harm our loved ones when on the road would set a dangerous precedent. The court sided with Raed’s arguments, leading to a complete dismissal of all claims, saving our client hundreds of thousands of dollars. Congratulations to Raed and our happy clients!  #kpdlaw #Michigan #legaldefense #attorneysatlaw #victory

Last year, Artsana, a company known for its Chicco-brand child car booster seats, agreed to a settlement after claims it had misled customers on product usage, and offered $50 per purchase as compensation. But, the settlement took an unexpected turn when Artsana, which didn't admit to any wrongdoing, found itself overwhelmed by claims. Though they only sold about 875,000 seats, 3.3 million claims flooded in by the end of October, many of which appeared fraudulent. This surge of questionable claims led Artsana to take a step back. The company approached the Manhattan federal court to allege that the settlement had been targeted by criminals using advanced techniques to submit a large number of bogus claims. As a result, the court decided to put the settlement on hold until these issues could be sorted out by the lawyers. This phenomenon is not unheard of. In fact, it's become increasingly prevalent and poses a significant risk to the integrity of the class action system. According to a report by Digital Disbursements, there was a 19,000% increase in claims with signs of fraud from 2021 to 2023, totaling over 80 million last year alone. Chris Chorba, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher who represents Artsana, described this issue as an existential threat to the class action process. Fraudulent claims deplete the funds available in settlements meant to compensate legitimate consumers. As of now, no claims have been paid, and the case remains unresolved. . . . #classaction #lawsuit #law #fraud #legal #court

Who could’ve imagined that a slip-and-fall appeal might actually be interesting? Not me, that’s for sure. Most of my practice lately has focused on federal street and white-collar crimes, catastrophic injuries, medical devices, or securities disputes. Those are the kinds of issues that get my engine running. But let me say this now: I stand corrected. Surprisingly, in the right kind of case, a premises liability dispute can actually be a fascinating area of the law, particularly after Florida recently federalized its summary judgment rules. Along with Shannon Reese, who is counsel with my firm, and Jessica Latour of Romano Law Group, we just finished briefing an intriguing premises liability case. Our initial brief explains how our client, the proverbial little old lady, tried to walk from one restaurant to another, then fell off a concealed 18-inch retaining wall after sunset. She was seriously injured and suffered life-threatening complications that required 10 surgeries. In our telling of the story, the landowners were negligent because that ledge was unprotected by guardrails or signage despite being hidden by darkness, broken lights, unmown grass, and an optical illusion. But my friend and adversary for the defendants says not so fast, the trial court was correct to grant summary judgment under a variety of doctrines relating to landscaped areas, open-and-obvious dangers, and uneven floor levels. Of course, we reply to those arguments in several ways. At any rate, the briefs are below. Hopefully the Sixth District will convene argument, which would be my first in that court. But for now, we’re in the most common stage of an appeal: we wait.

🚨 BREAKING NEWS 🚨 We just secured a $4.5 million verdict in Washtenaw County on a third-party auto case! 🎉 Shoutout to Tyler Joseph of Marko Law for his stellar performance as first chair on this case, helping us achieve an over-limits verdict. This was Tyler's first trial as first-chair, and he absolutely crushed it! 💪 📍 Where: Washtenaw County Plaintiff: Alex Hammoud Defendant: Individual driver with $1.25 million in coverage from State Farm ($250k Underlying / $1 Mil Umbrella) 💡 Liability: Defendant claimed a "sudden acceleration" defense for the first time at trial, alleging he hit the "eco boost" button on the car. The jury was instructed to disregard this testimony, and we proceeded accordingly.💼 Damages: Alex suffered soft tissue damage to his back, resulting in inflammation and nerve root irritation. He returned to work after a few months with no surgery required. 💰 Offers: Only $22.5k was offered until trial, and today the jury asked for a calculator. We put on record the lack of response from State Farm, and they'll now be on the hook for the entire amount, with offer of judgment sanctions pending. Stay tuned for more updates! 📣 #MarkoLaw #Verdict #AutoCase #LegalVictory #WashtenawCounty #StateFarm #PersonalInjury #TrialSuccess

If you've experienced a slip-and-fall accident at a retail store, you might wonder about your rights. The answers aren't always clear, but the good news is that Demas Law Group is here to guide you through. 🚧 Are Stores Responsible for Safety? Absolutely! California laws mandate that stores ensure their premises are safe for customers. If a store neglects this duty and you get injured, they could be held financially accountable through a personal injury lawsuit. 🏪 Who's Liable in a Grocery Store Slip-and-Fall? Determining liability depends on the accident's cause and property ownership. If a structural issue or external factor caused your fall, the property owner might be liable. If it's due to store negligence (spills, obstacles), you may file a claim against the store owner. 👩⚖️ Store or Owner: Who to Sue? Your lawyer will investigate to identify whose actions led to your injuries. It's possible for both the store and owner to share responsibility. Your attorney will use evidence like surveillance footage, accident scene photos, and eyewitness accounts to build a strong case. For a personalized review of your case, contact Demas Law Group. Your first consultation is free. Book a consultation with us now! ☎️💼 #premisesliabilitylawyer #premisesliabilityattorney #personalinjuryattorney #tripandfall #personalinjuryprotection