When it comes to Florida premises liability lawsuits, it is always important to consider the landowner’s negligence as regards property maintenance. There are a variety of factors courts consider in order to legally determine if a landowner is negligent. Some of these factors include:
- The existing relationship between both parties;
- The nature of the defendant’s duty to the plaintiff;
- The type of hazard responsible for the injuries;
- If the plaintiff knew about the hazard;
- How informed was the plaintiff of the hazard
The court will need to consider the afore-mentioned factors so as to effectively determine if the defendant was negligent. Once a personal injury Attorney in Florida has presented enough evidence to prove that the defendant was negligent, the case will need to proceed to trial even if the plaintiff is found to be at fault.
Before a case can be sent to the jury for resolution, it is highly necessary that sufficient evidence is established. This is where the role of an experienced personal injury Attorney in Florida comes to play, as the plaintiff will need to present evidence of every element of his or her claim. The court won’t hesitate to dismiss any case that lacks adequate evidence to support a claim. Recently, a case presented by a plaintiff against a fast-food restaurant was thrown out of court due to lack of sufficient evidence.
The plaintiff said she was involved in an accident on her way out of the fast-food restaurant. According to her, she tripped and fell on a cement barrier while walking back to her car. To this end, she filed a premises liability lawsuit against the eatery. Her claim was that the restaurant was too negligent to care for their parking lot.
Initially, the restaurant responded by saying the plaintiff was at fault for failing to notice the cement barrier which is a popular fixture most parking lots. In her response, the plaintiff claimed that she was obstructed from noticing the barrier in the parking lot by another vehicle in the drive-thru lane.
However, the court was quick to reject the argument of the plaintiff explaining that the plaintiff should prove that the barrier was responsible for the accident. As a preliminary matter, the court affirmed that the plaintiff failed to prove the barrier could constitute a “hazard.” The court stated that cement barriers were common fixtures in parking lots, and as such, they can’t constitute any “hazard.” The court further explained that for this cause, the plaintiff would have been unsuccessful even if she had been distracted by another vehicle.
To the end, the court had no other choice but to reject the plaintiff’s argument that her failure to notify the barrier was caused by her distraction and the way it blended with the painted pavement.