Total Knee Replacement Research Total $ Outcome Type Subcategory Facts

Transcription

1 Total Knee Replacement Research Total Outcome Type Subcategory Facts 288, Plaintiff Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff slipped and fell while on crutches in the defendant apartment complex's foyer due to a wet floor and no signage. The plaintiff hyperextended his knee which resulted in the failure of a prior knee surgery which was intended to postpone a total knee replacement. 50, CN: Plaintiff 80%; Defendants 20% Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall Plaintiff tripped and fell in a hole on the defendant subdivision's roadway. 8, CN: Plaintiff 70%; Defendant 30% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall Judgment reduced to 2,642 for CN. Plaintiff slipped and fell in the defendant's supermarket from their failure to maintain and store its freezer, leading to a water leak. The defendant denied negligence and disputed injuries. 298, Plaintiff Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall Judgment reduced to 293,000 for 5000 collateral sources. The plaintiff was a guest in the defendant's hotel when she tripped and fell going down the cement stairs. She claimed dangerous stairs and inadequate lighting. Plaintiff's expert engineer claimed the stairs were out of South FL Building code and that there was inadequate lighting. The defendant denied negligence and disputed the injury's cause. The defendant claimed the lighting was adequate because it was set by a timer and that the Plaintiff was comparatively negligent for not watching where she was walking and that ER records showed she had not claimed a knee injury.

2 450, Plaintiff County Gov't Fall into Manhole Plaintiff was mowing his lawn when stepped onto defendant county's manhole when it flipped, causing plaintiff's leg to fall into it. The plaintiff claimed defendant failed to maintain cover in a safe condition due to it being the wrong size. The defendant claimed comparative negligence and that the TKR was not causally related to the fall. 138, Plaintiff Doctor Malpractice 22, CN: Plaintiff 75%; Defendant 25% Premises Liability Fall - Defense Premises Liability Fall Failure to Interpret Test Results Judgment reduced to 125,142. The plaintiff claimed that he suffered aggravation of a pre-existing left knee fractured tibia, requiring TKR, and resulting in permanent disability after x-rays were interpreted as normal by the defendant physicians. The defendants denied liability and disputed that the injuries were related to care. The also contended that the injuries were caused by the plaintiff or other nonparties. Plaintiff purchased a home from the defendant company and had the defendant company contract out to fix any issues with the home. The plaintiff was unaware that the carpet was not firmly attached to stairs and told the defendant. The plaintiff then claimed that the defendant did not remedy the issue despite repeat requests. The plaintiff fell when carpet came loose from under her and claimed that the defendant was negligent to ensure stairs were repaired correctly, respond timely to plaintiff's needs, and warn of dangerous conditions. The defendant denied negligence, alleged comparative negligence, and negligence of non-party repairmen. Plaintiff fell on loose stepping stones at the defendant-owned apartment complex. She claimed that the defendant was negligent in failing to maintain the premises and in failing to correct a dangerous condition. The defendant claimed the stones were placed by a previous tenant and that plaintiff had lived in complex for more than a year and had to take over stone responsibility (Bovis v. 7-11). There was dispute as to where the fall occurred and frequency of plaintiff's use of the stones.

3 - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall Plaintiff tripped on a protrusion from the ground at middle school where he was employed He claimed workers of an electrical company were at fault for putting in a lightning protection system but letting it become a hazard. The defense claimed that there was no evidence that plaintiff was in a capacity as an employee at time of fall or that he had no evidence that protrusion was related to lightning protection system (maintenance worker identified object as "abandoned pipe" unrelated to lighting protection system). The plaintiff walked by the hazard daily with no complaints. The plaintiff claimed he was unable to return to work due to his injuries. 12, CN: Plaintiff 90%; Defendant 10% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall The defendant in this case was Sea World. The plaintiff slipped on a wooden walkway after a rain shower and contended that the defendant failed to correct the dangerous condition by providing slip-resistant surface or by covering walkway with a roof and failure to warn. - Defense Premises Liability 659, Collapse of Seating Unit CN: Plaintiff 3%; Defendant 93% Premises Liability Construction Site 450, Settlement Product Liability Chair Plaintiff was at the defendant's restaurant when he sat on a bench-chair seating unit and the unit collapsed and broke causing his fall. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was negligent in failing to inspect the unit and failed to correct the dangerous condition. The defendant acknowledged unit toppled-over but denied that it broke. Plaintiff was installing an A/C on a building leased by the defendant ambulance company when a crane hit an overhead guy-wire for the building's radio transmission antenna. The wire struck the defendant causing a fall from ladder. The plaintiff sustained electric shock injuries and contended wire was dangerously low and lacked appropriate markings The plaintiff has been unemployed since the accident. Plaintiff sat in a chair at an Expo and claimed that there was a design and manufacturing defect. The plaintiff sued Lowe's and Eastern's exhibit at the Expo.

4 189, CN: Plaintiff 75%; Defendant 25% Premises Liability Fall The defendant in this case was Walt Disney World. The plaintiff fell over a podium at the defendant's theme park when defendant negligently placed the podium in the path of patrons. The color of podium was dark and the location of podium not well lit. The defendant contended that the podium was in an open area, that plaintiff's injuries were caused by her own negligence, and that the knee replacement was not causally related to fall. - Defense Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall 8, Plaintiff MVA Rear-End 449, Plaintiff Premises Liability Patron Struck by Falling Roll of Carpet 154, Plaintiff Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall - Defense Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall 100, Plaintiff MVA Intersection - Defense Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall - Defense Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff slipped and fell at defendant's restaurant where he was a customer. He claimed that the defendant was negligent in allowing a dangerous condition and failing to remedy/warn. The defendant denied liability, and disputed extent of the plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff claimed multiple injuries including TKR. The defendant claimed low impact, low speed collision and minimal property damage and that TKR was not causally related to accident. Plaintiff was shopping at the defendant's store when a roll of carpet fell and struck the plaintiff causing her to fall. The defendant in this case was Wal-Mart. The plaintiff claimed she tripped and fell on a clear liquid in an aisle. The defendant denied notice of condition. Plaintiff slipped and fell on liquid in defendant's RaceTrac restroom. The defendant claimed no notice of condition, and that plaintiff did not avoid the liquid after noticing it. Defendant ran stop sign and collided with plaintiff. The defendant admitted negligence, but denied that the impact caused permanent injury. Plaintiff slipped and fell in aisle of defendant Wal-Mart. This case was tried on liability only. Plaintiff slipped and fell as a result of an improperly secured toilet seat in the defendant apartment complex. The defendant alleged plaintiff fell off the seat from standing on it and that it was properly secured.

5 132, Settlement Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall - Defense Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff slipped and fell in puddle of water on the defendant grocery store's floor. The defendant did not dispute the puddle. Plaintiff slipped and fell on striped area of crosswalk in defendant's mall parking lot and alleged that crosswalk stripings constituted an unreasonable dangerous condition as they did not contain any additives or beads. 66, CN: Plaintiff 25%; Defendant 75% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall Judgment reduced to 31,000 for CN. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant janitorial service left mop water in an elevator causing plaintiff to fall. She also claimed that there was no warning sign by the water. The defendant claimed comparative negligence, that the TKR was not related to accident, and that the floor was obviously wet. - Defense Medical Malpractice Knee Surgery when Contraindicated Plaintiff claimed that the defendant physician performed Carticel surgery on her knees, but she had generalized arthritis, and the procedure should not be used on people with generalized arthritis, resulting in need for a TKR. The defendant claimed she did not have generalized arthritis that would contraindicate this procedure. - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall - Defense Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall 59, Plaintiff Premises Liability Fall Plaintiff was leaving the defendant-owned office building when she tripped and fell down the stairs. She alleged that the design and construction was dangerous and caused her fall. The defendant denied that the stairs were dangerous and disputed her injuries. Plaintiff claimed she slipped and fell in puddle of water on floor from produce section. The defendant grocery store claimed that plaintiff didn't know how water got on the floor and that her left knee pre-existing condition was not totally asymptomatic prior to accident. Plaintiff was a guest at the defendant's hotel when he claimed that a shower grab bar came loose causing him to fall. The defendant denied that injuries were caused by the fall and not pre-existing conditions.

6 170, CN: Plaintiff 54%; Defendant 46% Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall - Defense Premises Liability Fall - Defense Premises Liability Fall - Defense MVA Rear-End - Defense Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall 44, Plaintiff Premises Liability Fall - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall - Defense Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff tripped at the defendant's motel on a dangerous elevated courtyard. The defendant claimed that the elevation was open and obvious, and that plaintiff had known of condition. Plaintiff fell in a pothole on the defendant's property while helping his stepfather move. The defendants claimed that the pothole was open and obvious and that they had no duty/notice to warn. Plaintiff was an employee of Zales who had leased a space from defendant Burdine's. He alleged that he tripped over a throw rug. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff knew about the rug for approximately 3 months prior to incident and that it was an open and obvious condition. Plaintiff was rear-ended by the defendant. The defendant claimed that he did not have the opportunity to avoid the collision after plaintiff made sudden stop. Plaintiff claimed that she slipped and fell in puddle of spilled coffee at the defendant's gas station. The plaintiff could not return to her prior employment. The defendant argued the plaintiff did not report the fall, that no incident report was made, and that plaintiff did not seek treatment for 3 weeks after incident. While attending adult classes at Boca Raton Middle School, the plaintiff stepped into a sprinkler hole causing her to fall. The defendant denied responsibility for the accident and denied that the plaintiff's health problems were caused by the accident. Plaintiff tripped and fell on parking stop and claimed that the defendant restaurant placed a planter in the walkway. Plaintiff slipped and fell on a grape in defendant's grocery store. She claimed fall was caused by the defendant's negligence in failing to pick up the grape/grapes. The defense denied notice and denied that the TKR was causally related to fall.

7 - Defense Premises Liability Negligent Maintenance Plaintiff claimed a toilet seat cam loose, causing injury to her knee resulting in a TKR. The defendant denied accident occurred as alleged by the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff was standing on the toilet seat. - Defense Premises Liability Fall Plaintiff tripped and fell on an uneven manhole cover in the middle of the sidewalk and claimed that the defendant city and county were negligent in failing to maintain the sidewalk and manhole cover and in failing to correct a dangerous condition that was present. The defendant county admitted ownership of sidewalk but denied ownership of cover, alleging that was city's responsibility. 250, Settlement MVA Collision None - Defense Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall 837, Plaintiff Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall 200, Settlement Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff slipped on a grape at defendant's Walmart store. The defendant maintained that there was no evidence the grape was dropped by its employees and disputed a causal relationship between the slip and the knee condition. The defendant conceded that there was a crushed grape where plaintiff fell but there was no evidence to how it was dropped or how long it was there for. Plaintiff claimed she stepped in puddle of water at the defendant KFC, causing her shoes to become slippery and she slipped while exiting. Plaintiff slipped on the defendant Oceania Cruises' ship. She claimed the defendant allowed gangway to become slippery and wet causing the fall. The defendant claimed that some water was to be expected on a ship's gangway and that the water was an open and obvious condition.

8 - Defense Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall 630, Settlement Premises Liability Elevator The defendant in this case was Target. The plaintiff slipped and fell inside the defendant Target and claimed that the defendant failed to keep area clean and debris-free. The defendant admitted video of plaintiff falling and didn't dispute that the fall happened, but claimed that there was no proof of water on the ground and that fire and rescue personnel did not notice any water near the location and that the plaintiff did not think there was water there. An elevator door fell two stories to the top of the elevator car because it was not in place. 322, Plaintiff MVA Improper Turn Defendant disputed a traumatic knee injury. 161, Plaintiff Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall 8, CN: Plaintiff 45%; Defendant 55% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff was a passenger of a cruise ship operated by the defendant Celebrity Cruises when she slipped and fell on a damp/slippery floor on the ship. She contended that the defendant failed to require crew members to wipe down wet areas of the floor, failed to adequately warn, failed to provide a safe place to walk, and created dangerous condition. The defendant denied liability and claimed no prior knowledge of the condition. Plaintiff was injured when she tripped over a change in elevation between 2 slabs of sidewalk concrete. The defendant claimed the condition was open and obvious. Plaintiff fell at the defendant's Winn-Dixie, claiming that floor at store entrance was defective due to change in height. The defendant denied liability. The plaintiff tripped over an extended edge in the defendant bank's parking lot. The defendant disputed the nature and extent of injuries. Judgment reduced to 4,400 for CN. The plaintiff slipped and fell on water in the defendant Wal-Mart. The defendant claimed that there were regular inspections of the floors for hazards. 600, Settlement MVA Blocking Road Plaintiff and logging truck collided.

9 60, Plaintiff Premises Liability Fall The defendant in this case was Sam's Club. The plaintiff was struck by a wooden stanchion employed by defendant in an attempt to maintain orderly customer lines. The defendant contested liability upon the plaintiffs' failure to show any prior issues with the stanchion. 85, Settlement MVA Golf Cart Accident Plaintiff was struck by the defendant's golf cart. Plaintiff tripped over plywood that had been nailed to the - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall ground in the lobby of defendant's restaurant. The defense claimed that there were multiple signs, no other falls reported, and that the plaintiff had previously walked through the area. 600, CN: Plaintiff 80%; Defendants 20% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall 370, Plaintiff Product Liability Boat Ladder Plaintiff slipped and fell on cigarette butt on the floor of the defendant supermarket (Winn-Dixie). The defendant denied the existence of the cigarette butt, and contended the fall may have been due to medications plaintiff was on. Plaintiff purchased boat ladder and it broke. He took ladder to get it repaired and claimed the repair was defective causing injury. - Defense MVA Negligent Passing 400, CN: Plaintiff 10%; Defendant 90% Premises Liability Fall Plaintiff (SUV driver) claimed that an unidentified tractortrailer negligently passed her, throwing water under her vehicle and causing it to hydroplane and roll over. The truck driver did not stop at scene. The defendant disputed plaintiff's story and claimed she overreacted in the situation and turned left just before the roll over. Judgment reduced to 360,000 for CN. Plaintiff was employed by the defendant ship when he slipped on the first step in a descending stairway and fell to the bottom of it. The plaintiff contended negligence under Jones Act and that the tanker was unseaworthy due to inadequate design/construction of stairway including poor lighting and insufficient handrails. The defendants claimed stairway was lined with non-skid strips. The plaintiff has been unable to work since accident and was found permanently and totally disabled.

10 300, Plaintiff Premises Liability Fall 652, Plaintiff Maritime Accident Defective Ladder - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall 136, CN: Plaintiff 20%; Defendant 80% Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall - Defense MVA Rear-End Judgment 297,500; plaintiff at defendant gas station when he fell on a liquid substance immediately inside the entrance door; defendant admitted negligence, disputed extent of damages Plaintiff was aboard the defendant ship while it was undergoing a major repair. He was tasked with checking anodes in the oil cargo tank using a ladder when a defective rung gave way causing him to fall and become injured. He contended that the defendants were negligent in maintaining the vessel in an unseaworthy condition, which is a Jones Act violation. Plaintiff claimed he tripped and fell in the defendant's furniture store as a result of a dangerous condition in the form of raised display platform. He contended that there were no warning signs and there was a lack of contrast between platform and floor. The defendant denied that the platform was dangerous, that it was an open and obvious condition, and that it was constructed of a different color beige tile and Berber carpeting. The further contended that the fall was caused by plaintiff's own negligence. Plaintiff was at the defendant's flea market when she tripped in a pothole in the asphalt. She claimed that the defendant allowed a dangerous condition (multiple potholes). The defendant denied negligence and argued that the plaintiff failed to use reasonable caution when walking. The defense also claimed that the condition was open and obvious. Plaintiff contended that his right knee hit the dashboard on impact. The defendant contended that the plaintiff stopped suddenly, but plaintiff claimed he was stopped for 3-5 minutes.

11 - Defense County Gov't Trip-and-Fall 797, Plaintiff MVA Illegal U-Turn - Defense Premises Liability Fall Plaintiff tripped and fell on an uneven sidewalk in the defendant county. She claimed the county failed to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition. Plaintiff was on a motorcycle when he was hit in the front by an SUV that made a sudden U-Turn. He claimed that the defendant failed to identify oncoming traffic or yield RoW. The defendant claimed he did not fail to yield RoW and that the plaintiff hit him from behind. Plaintiff claimed that he tripped and fell at the foot of a drawbridge on land owned by the defendant restaurant and maintained by the co-defendant State of FL. He contended that the defendants failed to maintain the premises in a safe manner, failed to fill hole or barricade and failed to remedy or warn. The defendants denied liability and disputed plaintiff's injuries. 87, CN: Plaintiff 50%; Defendant 50% Pest Control Negligence Erroneous Tarping of Home Plaintiff claimed that the defendant pest control company negligently tarped her house for fumigation, causing her to become irate resulting in the fall and injuries. 400, Plaintiff MVA Rear-End CN: Plaintiff 77.5%; 42, Defendant: 22.5% MVA Violation of RoW 50, Plaintiff MVA Bicycle/Vehicle Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle when she claimed that the defendant armored truck rear-ended her vehicle at a traffic light. The defendant argued that the plaintiff caused the accident. Plaintiff contended that the defendant pulled out in front of his vehicle, causing the collision. Plaintiff claimed his bicycle collided with a curb when he attempted to avoid striking the co-defendant's tow truck operated by the defendant. He claimed that the defendant operated the truck in negligent manner, failed to keep a proper lookout, swerved the truck into the plaintiff's lane of travel, and failed to maintain control of truck. The plaintiff also claimed that codefendant failed to properly hire, train, and supervise employees. The defendants denied liability.

12 - Defense Premises Liability Fall Plaintiff was dropping off to the defendant's meat and fish market when, on his way out, he hit his head on the delivery door causing him to fall. He claimed that the door was defective and improperly maintained. After the initial fall, the plaintiff's left leg collapsed, causing him to fall off of his delivery truck. The plaintiff claimed he is no longer able to work and claimed a million dollar loss of earning capacity. 294, CN: Plaintiff 40%; Defendant 60% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall Judgment reduced to 176,880. The plaintiff slipped and fell on 2 separate occasions at the defendant Wal-Mart store. 42, CN: Plaintiff 60%; Defendant 40% MVA Intersection 112, Plaintiff MVA Broadside 240, Plaintiff MVA Improper Lane Change 183, Plaintiff Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall The accident occurred during a rain storm when the defendant had a flashing red light and the plaintiff had flashing yellow light at an intersection. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant ran the red flashing light, causing the accident. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff was driving too fast for weather conditions and admitted she may have made rolling stop. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant insurance company failed to honor the provisions of insurance policy. The defendant denied liability, and disputed the nature of the plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant insurance company (State Farm) failed to uphold the policy provisions in a UM policy. The defendant denied liability, and disputed extent of the plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant home hair salon owner was negligent in leaving a slippery substance on the floor and failed to clean it. The defendant was in default for failing to answer the complaint and was unrepresented at trial. The plaintiff contended that her injury precluded her from continuing her real estate career. - Defense Medical Malpractice Negligent Performance of Surgery Plaintiff contended that the defendant orthopedic surgeon improperly performed TKR surgery, necessitating a second surgery. The defendant maintained that surgery was properly performed, but the plaintiff developed laxity due to inherent knee instability.

13 - Defense Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall The plaintiff slipped on a liquid at the defendant's store. The defendant argued that there was no evidence to how long liquid had been on the floor or that moisture was presented before plaintiff fell. 13, CN: Plaintiff 40%; Defendant 60% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff was at the defendant supermarket (Winn-Dixie) when she slipped and fell in puddle of dirty liquid located inside the entrance doorway. The defendant claimed the plaintiff had a prior bad knee replacement which had caused her to seek treatment several times before the accident. - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall 405, Plaintiff Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall 8, Plaintiff MVA Rear-End Plaintiff tripped over a golf stake and fell. She claimed that the defendant failed to maintain the property in reasonably safe condition and failed to provide standard for placement of stakes. The defendant argued that stakes are common on golf courses, that the stake was open and obvious, and that the stake was known to plaintiff at time of fall. Plaintiff was at the defendant Best Buy when she tripped over a board separating stoves. She claimed they were hard to see. The defendant claimed that if plaintiff had been paying attention she would not have fell and shouldn't have been walking where she was. The defendant also claimed that the plaintiff's experts did not use accepted methodologies to make determinations. Plaintiff slipped and fell on a fruit at the defendant market where she was a customer. She contended that the defendant failed to routinely inspect and properly maintain premises, failed to properly hire, train, supervise employees, failed to provide secure environment, and failed to keep area around fruit stalls clean. The defendant denied liability and disputed extent and nature of injuries. Plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended by defendant's vehicle. The plaintiff contended that the defendant operated the vehicle in a negligent manner, failed to keep a proper lookout, and failed to maintain assured clear distance. The defendant admitted liability, and disputed the nature/extent of injuries.

14 - Defense FELA Railroad Worker 260, Settlement Premises Liability Fall Plaintiff worked at the defendant CSX railroad and claimed that the defendant was negligent in failing to provide a reasonably safe place to work and that the negligence caused his knee injury. The defendant denied negligence and any causal connection between the workplace and the knee damage. Plaintiff fell while going up wet stairs at the defendant Resort when it had been raining. The accident took place under an overhang area. 165, Plaintiff Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff slipped and fell on dishwashing soap spill. CN: Plaintiff 50%; Plaintiff slipped on deteriorating concrete surface of a 60, Defendant 50% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall walkway while exiting defendant Sam's Club. 72, CN: Plaintiff 50%; Defendant 50% Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall Judgment reduced to 36,077 for CN. Plaintiff tripped and fell on a bolt in the floor at a health club causing a knee injury after alleging that health club had removed a machine and left a bolt sticking up. The defendant denied any machines being moved and denied the existence of a bolt. 156, CN: Plaintiff 98%; Defendant 2% Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall Judgment reduced to 3,120 for CN. Plaintiff tripped and fell on carpeting on the defendant restaurant's stairs. She contended that the defendant failed to maintain the premises in safe condition, failed to repair/replace loose carpet, failed to provide adequate illumination, failed to provide a handrail near stairs, and failed to warn of a known danger. The defendant denied liability, and contended that the plaintiff failed to keep a proper lookout and that she was aware of the condition as a frequent patron of the restaurant. 12, Plaintiff MVA Sideswipe 85, CN: Plaintiff 25%; Defendant 75% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall This case was tried on damages/causation only. The plaintiff claimed the defendant negligently pulled out of parking lot and sideswiped the vehicle, causing permanent injuries. The defendant admitted negligence and maintained that the plaintiff had no permanent injury. Plaintiff slipped and fell on wet floor at a nonparty building where the defendant janitorial services were provided. The defendant denied liability and disputed the extent of the plaintiff's injuries.

15 - Defense MVA Rear-End - Defense Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall - Defense Premises Liability Fall - Defense Product Liability Scaffolding - Defense MVA Intersection - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall 300, Settlement MVA Intersection Plaintiff stopped for phantom vehicle making a right turn when the defendant rear-ended her. The plaintiff claimed vehicular negligence. The defendant denied liability and claimed that the plaintiff's injuries could not have been caused by the force of the accident. Plaintiff slipped and fell on water in defendant grocery store. The plaintiff claimed his pre-existing condition was asymptomatic until after the fall. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff couldn't prove where the water came from and that the plaintiff didn't complain about knee pain until 6 weeks post-accident. Plaintiff fell 4-6 ft down an embankment at the defendant restaurant. He claimed that the restaurant did not maintain a safe passage to and from the property. the defendant contended that passageway where plaintiff fell was under FL Department of Transportation rule and that the restaurant is not responsible for it. Plaintiff fell approx 6ft from scaffold owned by the defendant company and leased to the Plaintiff's employer when it collapsed. The plaintiff claimed the scaffold was corroded, rusted and the scaffolding was not provided with railings or secured to the building properly. The defendant claimed scaffold was well maintained. Plaintiff's car was struck by the defendant's truck. The plaintiff contended that the defendant driver failed to stop at a stop sign. Plaintiff tripped and fell on an uneven sidewalk owned by the defendant hospitals. She claimed that she sustained permanent injuries. The defendants denied liability and filed motion to dismiss when there was evidence plaintiff had misrepresented her cause of injury. Plaintiff's vehicle was struck broadside by the defendant's vehicle at an intersection. The defendant denied liability.

16 60, , CN: Plaintiff 50%; Defendant 50% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff slipped and fell while exiting the defendant Sam's Club. The plaintiff contended that the defendants failed to provide a safe environment by negligently allowing a dangerous condition and failing to remedy/warn. The defendant denied liability and disputed the extent of the plaintiff's injuries.