premises liability attorney

Published on: August 12, 2017

Injury at Bar With Mechanical Bull Lassos $80K Settlement

A bar injury involving a mechanical bull resulted in an $81,000 settlement prior to trial, after a customer was thrown violently from the ride, suffering a broken ankle, torn ligament and other injuries. The same bar has paid at least $200,000 in damages to at least six other patrons who suffered similar injuries over a ten-year time frame.

Mechanical bulls are a staple at some Western-themed bars across the U.S., including in Florida. This particular case occurred in New York, but the same basic legal theory of premises liability applies.

Property owners and property managers have a responsibility to make sure their site is reasonably safe for paying customers (also known as “business invitees”). That means addressing conditions that are unreasonably dangerous, and warning customers about them if there are no immediate fixes. It’s unclear in this case whether there were any warnings or liability waivers signed by those who rode the bull, but defendants in these cases have been known to assert the defense that claimants assumed the risk when they chose to ride. Continue reading →

Published on: August 25, 2016

Piazza v. Kellim – Nightclub Shooting Liability Lawsuit

By Dean Freeman

The family of a teen foreign exchange student who was fatally shot outside of a nightclub in Portland, Ore. will be allowed to continue pursuit of their premises liability lawsuit following a new ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court.

Peruvian Martha Paz de Noboa Delgado was killed in 2009 as she waited outside of a teen nightclub with a group of other foreign exchange students. She had been dropped off at the location, reportedly in a rough part of town, by her host family. She was just 17-years-old. It was later revealed the 24-year-old gunman suffered from schizophrenia. He opened fire on the group of students, wounding seven and killing two before turning the gun on himself.

Delgado’s estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit, Piazza v. Kellim, against the nightclub and related companies, as well as against the foreign exchange organization. The $1.8 million claim argues that the owners of the club and related firms failed to take reasonable measures to protect customers. Namely, they forced young patrons to wait outside in what they knew was a high-crime area. The club and others nearby had a long history of problems with crime, and yet did not allow customers to wait inside for entry. The lawsuit further asserts the club did not have sufficient security. Against the student foreign exchange program, plaintiffs asserted a failure to provide adequate training to the host family. Continue reading →

Published on: March 28, 2016

Woody v. Pembina County Annual Fair – Recreational Use Immunity

By Dean Freeman

In general, property owners and managers are bound by law to ensure lawful guests – particularly consumers and members of the public – are reasonably safe from foreseeable harms on that property.

However, there is one major exception, and it’s important to understand when it might apply. It’s called the “Recreational Use Statute,” and every state has one. In Florida, it’s codified in F.S. 375.251. The intention is to compel large land owners to allow public use of their property for recreational purposes by significantly reducing any potential liability he or she might face for injury by those guests.

Florida’s recreational use statute states that no land owner or lessee who provides the public with a park area or land for outdoor recreation cannot be presumed to extend any assurance that the area, land or water is safe for any purpose. The term “outdoor recreational purposes” can include (but isn’t limited to) activities that include things like swimming, boating, hiking, picnicking, motorcycling, pleasure driving, hunting and more. Continue reading →