Phares Matthews Heindl's Legal Cases (6)

Personal injury

ELEANOR EADS v. ABERTHAW CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Nov 28, 2007

OUTCOME: $596,383.89 for Plaintiff

Falldown/Auditorium. On February 5, 2000, Plaintiff Eleanor was a business invitee at a local pageant which was being held in a high school auditorium owned and operated by the Orange County School Boa ... rd. As she exited the facility, Eleanor began to negotiate the various pairs of steps to the floor of the auditorium. Plaintiffs alleged that while she was stepping from the last flat intermediate step, Eleanor thought she would be stepping onto the flat floor level. However, instead of flat floor, Eleanor stepped onto a sloped bottom step, causing Eleanor to lose her balance and fall to the floor of the auditorium. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant, as general contractor for the auditorium, was negligent in violating one or more provisions of the applicable building code found in Rule 6A-2.045 of the Florida Administrative Code. These violations include failing to: (1) install demarcation or marking strips along the edge of each step; (2) install handrails for the aisle stairs; and (3) prevent the creation of a slope on the bottom step which would be a danger to patrons such as Eleanor. Defendant alleged that Eleanorâ€™s claim was barred by the Slavin rule which states that a contractor could not be liable to a third party for injuries as a result of a patent defect in construction after the project had been completed and accepted by the owner, citing Slavin vs. Kay, 108 So.2d. 462 (Fla. 1959). Defendant also asserted comparative negligence and negligence of W.R. Frizzell Architects, the architectural firm for the project. Injury to right leg which required surgery. Plaintiff Eleanore has a residual disability with pain complaints and difficulty in ambulation. VERDICT: $596,383.89 for Plaintiff Eleanor on November 29, 2007 ($56,383.89 - past and future medical expenses; $252,000 - past pain and suffering; $288,000 - future pain and suffering). Plaintiff Eleanorâ€™s Negligence: 33.33%; Defendantâ€™s Negligence: 33.33%; W.R. Frizzell Architectsâ€™ Negligence: 33.33% JUDGMENT: The case was settled favorably post verdict. NOTE : This was a four day trial. The jury was composed of three males and three females. The jury deliberated for approximately four hours. The jury found that Defendant violated one or more provisions of the applicable building code which was a legal cause of loss, injury or damage to Eleanor. The jury also found that either the absence of handrails, the absence of marking strips, or the slope on the bottom step of the subject premises constituted a latent defect. Plaintiffsâ€™ Proposal for Settlement was $70,000. The Top offer before trial was less than $10,000.00. The case was rejected by at least three law firms before undertaken by Phares Heindl. The subject stairs were completed about 12 years before the injury. The Plaintiffâ€™s lawyer had to make a exhaustive search for coverage and for the defendant for service of process.

Personal injury

Peters v. Seminole County School Board

N/A

OUTCOME: $266,000.00 Verdict, Defense offer $40,000.00

Liability: Pedestrian: On Roadway Outcome of Case: $266,111, Verdict Primary Injury: Foot Tendon Damage Text of Case: A 14-year-old female student suffered a foot laceration, foot tendon damage ... and a scar on her left foot when a school bus, owned by the defendant school board, backed over her foot as she attempted to cross the road after exiting the bus. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's driver was negligent, that he failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to use due care for her safety. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant's driver violated its written policy which prohibits a school bus driver from backing after discharging passengers and that itâ€™s failure to enforce that policy resulted in the plaintiffs injuries. The defendant admitted liability at trial. Case Caption: Peters, pro ami, Moore v. Seminole County School Board Court & Docket: District (98-1665-CA-11-B) Location: FL/Seminole

Personal injury

List v. Beatty

N/A

OUTCOME: Tried in 1986 - $110,000.00 verdict for Plaintiff

The case was followed and reported in the Orlando Sentinel as follows: Dog bite - woman attacked by Pit Bulls suffered permanent scarring, verdict in Osceola County, Florida in 1986, Jury Awards $ ... 110,000.00 From the Orlando Sentinel (Copyright 1986 by The Orlando Sentinel) A jury has awarded an Orlando woman $110,000 stemming from a 1985 attack by three pit bull dogs. Osceola Circuit Court jurors deliberated two hours Tuesday night before finding the dogs' owners, Helen Beatty and her mother, Opal, liable in the attack on Barbara List. List, now 28, had an appointment to style one of the women's hair on April 29, 1985, and as she walked through a gate toward the Beattys' Kissimmee home the dogs approached her, growling. List said she waved her arms to try to scare them off but the dogs bit her legs, ankles, arms and head. Her attorney, Pharis( sic) Heindl, said the injuries required List to be hospitalized and out for eight weeks of work. Her medical expenses were about $8,000, he said.

Personal injury

HAWLEY-SMITH vs. Simon Property Group

N/A

OUTCOME: Bifurcated Trial - net recovery $ 444,546.37

In this case brought against Simon Property Group, a major multinational real estate development company, a paraplegic fell from her wheelchair as she was trying to pass the exit vestibule of a Service ... Merchandise store. At the time of the incident, she was shopping at West Town Corners, an upscale strip mall owned and developed by Simon Property Group. At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was attempting to reach the entrance of Service Merchandise, an anchor tenant in the strip mall. She had been shopping at Wal-Mart, another major tenant and was propelling her wheelchair the sidewalk trying to get to the entrance of the Service Merchandise when the accident occurred. As the Plaintiff proceeded toward the entrance of the Service Merchandise she approached an exit vestibule projecting into the sidewalk area. An area in front of the exit vestibule was ramped to allow wheelchair enabled people to pass. However, the ramp was steep and was in violation of the Altamonte Springs Building Code. The building code required that ramps for public buildings have a slope no greater than 1:12. The Plaintiff recognized that the ramp was too steep and and turned her wheelchair left to proceed around a column and head down the ramp leading from the exit vestibule. Although this route looked appropriate to the Plaintiff, the ramp leading from the exit vestibule was too steep, did not have a "landing" and was in violation of the Altamonte Springs Building Code. As a result of the dangerous ramp, the Plaintiff's wheelchair tipped and she fell from her wheelchair onto the pavement and was injured. During the pretrial stage of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff added the contractor responsible for the construction of the ramp as a Defendant. Service Merchandise was uninsured and in bankruptcy and was not added as a defendant. The contractor, Suit Construction Co. settled before trial in the amount of $210,000.00. Prior to trial Defendant Simon Property Group moved for bifurcation of liability and damages. The court granted the motion and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of liability alone leaving the issue of damages for another day. At the trial, Defendant Simon claimed that the Plaintiff did not fall due to a defective ramp but contended that the Plaintiff was thrown from her wheelchair as a result of a paraplegic spasm. After fives day of trial, a Seminole County jury, holding Simon Property Group liable determined that the ramp was a dangerous and defective. The Jury apportioned liability among the parties and Fabre defendants as follows: Simon Property Group, 30%, Plaintiff (comparative negligence) 20%, Service Merchandise ( Fabre Defendant) 50% Suitt Construction ( General Contractor settled before trial) 0% Kirkland Group ( Fabre Architect) 0%. Pursuant to Florida law, the plaintiff will be able to recover 80% of her economic damages from Defendant Simon. Because the jury did not apportion any liability to the settling defendant, Suitt Construction, Simon Property Group will not get an offset for the settlement paid by Suit Construction Company. The trial on damages resulted in a Jury Verdict of $250,100.00. This amount did not include the previous settlment. After offsets and cost, the Plaitiffs recovered $194,546.37 from Simon Properties. Total recovery was $ 444,546.37.

Personal injury

Freeman v. Dix Construction Company, Inc.

N/A

OUTCOME: $589,685.00 verdict for the Plaintiff

37-year-old man injured on construction site, Jury Awards $589,685 A 37-year-old male fell from some scaffolding while on the job at a construction site in Brevard County, Florida. The fall was due ... to the lack of safety rails, cross braces and proper planking on the scaffolding. The Defendant contractor argued that there was not negligence on their part and that the Plaintiff was under the influence of marijuana and amphetamines as well as intoxicated. The Plaintiff argued that because of the laceration in the liver the findings of amphetamines in his blood system were inaccurate. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $337,000 pain and suffering, $18,600 past medical expenses, $37,125 past lost wages, $174,460 future lost wages and $22,500 to the Plaintiffâ€™s wife for loss of consortium. The verdict was reduced to reflect the juries finding of comparative negligence on the Plaintiff. The top offer of the Defendant was $40,000.00 and the offer was withdrawn at the time of trial. The Plaintiff was awarded attorney's fee because the net verdict was well in excess of the Plaintiff's proposal for settlement. The case survived an aggressive appeal and the Plaintiff was awarded attorney's fees for the appeal. Interestingly, during before the trial begin the trial judge inquired about settlements of the case. The defense attorney while deriding the merits of the case told the judge and uttered his famous last words â€œthe only thing that concerns me about this case is that I never had facts so good."

Insurance

January v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company

N/A

OUTCOME: Appellate victory for Plaintiff - Insurance

January was injured while driving a 1981 Isuzu pickup on October 17, 1998. He was Insured by State Farm under an automobile policy covering a 1990 Isuzu pickup. The policy included personal injury ... protection benefits. State Farm paid Januaryâ€™s claims until January 22, 1999, when it advised January in writing that there was a question regarding coverage under the policy and it was issuing a reservation of rights. Specifically, State Farm said it was questionable â€œwhether the vehicle involved in the accident constitutes either temporary substitute, newly acquired or a non-owned automobile or car, as defined in the policy or trailer as covered in the policy.â€ The January 22 letter concluded by saying that if State Farm did not hear from the insured to the contrary, it would assume it was acceptable to continue handling the claim on terms of the reservation. State Farm did not, however, pay Januaryâ€™s medical bills submitted on January 2, 1999. On March 9, 1999, State Farm, now through counsel, wrote a letter scheduling an January responded through counsel on February22 that State Farm advise how January may have refused to cooperate with their investigative efforts, provide a copy of Januaryâ€™s policy, referencing any policy language on which they intend to rely, and specify what information they want from January. Counsel also indicated that January intended to cooperate with State Farm â€œto the full extent required by your insurance policy.â€ examination under oath on March 23, 1999. The policy in question provides that a person making a claim shall answer questions under oath when requested by State Farm. However, January did not attend the scheduled examination, nor did he attend a second scheduled examination, taking the position through counsel that PIP was largely controlled by statute and that the PIP statute did not contemplate statements under oath, only the discovery referenced in section 627.736(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (1999). Januaryâ€™s counsel did eventually give State Farm the name of the owner of the 1981 Isuzu and the name of his insurance company. State Farm then requested a copy of that ownerâ€™s policy from Januaryâ€™s counsel. When the policy was not received, a third examination under oath was scheduled. January again refused to attend this examination, instead filing suit against State Farm in county court for breach of contract for failing to pay his claims. January did appear for his deposition in the course of the lawsuit. He testified that the was not the owner of the 1981 Isuzu in which he was injured and he produced a bill of sale for the vehicle showing that he had sold it before the accident. State Farm nevertheless filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Januaryâ€™s failure to appear for any of the scheduled examinations under oath was a material breach of the insurance contract and barred his recovery of PIP benefits. The county court agreed and entered summary judgment for State Farm. State Farmâ€™s motion for attorneyâ€™s fees was granted. This case was appealed from the county court of Orange County, Florida to a three judge panel . All three circuit judges in Orlando, Florida sided with the county court judge and affirmed summary judgment. Phares Heindl then filed a petition for certiorari to the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Daytona Beach, Florida. The appellate court unanimously reversed the county court judge and the three circuit judges in Orange, County Florida and awarded attorneyâ€™s fees to the Plaintiffâ€™s attorney, Phares Heindl. See January v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 838 So.2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained