On August 24, at 2:00 pm ET, I will be giving a live webinar for the Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM) on ways to avoid and mitigate personal injury claims in the property management industry. The webinar is intended to give property owners and management professionals a glimpse into risk management from the perspective of a litigation attorney.
In a South Florida slip and fall case, we recently obtained summary judgment extinguishing our client's "Duty to Warn." We argued that the alleged condition was "Open and Obvious" based on the plaintiff's testimony.
While excluding expert testimony can be a difficult task, you should always be prepared to do so whenever possible. This article identifies five practical rules to help increase your chances of excluding an opposing party's expert.
The right to file a lawsuit based on a construction defect is not without limitation. Specifically, section 95.11(3)(c), Florida Statute sets forth the deadlines by which claims must be filed. Recently, the Florida Legislature has made several amendments to this statute, particularly with respect to the repose aspect.
This week, Florida House Bill 7 (HB-7) and Senate Bill 72 (SB-72) – which collectively comprise the “COVID-19 General Liability Bill” (hereinafter referred to as “the proposed statute”) – moved one step closer to being passed into law.
When a lawsuit arises from an injury that occurs as a result of a dangerous condition on another's property, this type of claim is called “premises liability.” Normally, those in possession or control of real property (aka a “possessor”) owe a duty of care to individuals who access such property.
Whether done intentionally or not, plaintiffs frequently assert premises liability claims against defendants that are not actually subject to such claims. When this happens, these defendants are at risk of facing a heightened duty of care that can be tantamount to strict liability.