In my experience, the most common condition in any premises liability case is the lack of guardianship of the property. In most instances, the property owner and/or manager fails to put in place policies and procedures that ensure that the premises is kept in a reasonably safe condition. For example, in many negligent security cases it becomes obvious that the owner and management fail to do anything that assesses violent crime occurring at the property. Without knowing what type of crime is happening, it is nearly impossible to know what type of security measures are needed. How can the owner make decisions about access control, manned security, and surveillance cameras, if they have failed to gather the crime statistics for the property and the surrounding area? The answer is simple, they do not know and consequently violent crime continues to victimize the property’s guests and invitees. In slip and fall cases, many properties fail to ensure that their employees follow the internal policies and procedures to maintain the property in a safe manner. This leads to dangerous conditions being left on the property for an unacceptable amount of time.
If property owners simply prepare policies and procedures for their employees to follow and have appropriate supervision to ensure that the policies and procedures are being followed, then the most dangerous conditions would cease to exist. Obviously, financial considerations come into play for the property owners. In developing a premises liability case, it is important to discover exactly what property owners are failing to do and why they are failing to do it. Jurors do not appreciate property owners turning a blind eye and pleading ignorance. Jurors also do not accept that the owners do not want to put the necessary resources (money) into the property to make it safe.
Just today, my partner Todd Michaels, secured a $2.65 million dollar verdict in a negligent security case in Clay County, Florida. The facts of the case demonstrated that the property knew that there was a upswing in crime at the property. Instead of being proactive, the property owner allowed the access control gates to remain broken for over 6 months. The property owner’s failure caused the death of our client during a burglary attempt to his sister’s home. This is a prime example of how juries will find for a victim in light of a property owner refusing to make their property safe.
As discussed, when preparing a premises liability case, it is extremely important to go through what policies and procedures a property owner has put into place and whether they are being followed. Just as important is why a property owner is failing to take the reasonable steps to make sure that the property is safe. Get all written policies and procedures as soon as possible – send written discovery requesting this information with the filing of the Complaint. Follow this with detailed depositions of management and the property employees. Armed with this information, it will become easy to show that the property owner and/or management dug their head in the sand and were at fault for your client’s injury or death.
The Haggard Law Firm’s William Haggard, Michael Haggard, Douglas McCarron, Christopher Marlowe, Todd Michaels and James Blecke have all been named to the 2016 Super Lawyers List.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.
The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations.
The Haggard Law Firm’s Todd Michaels has been selected as the Chair of the Florida Justice Association’s Rental Car Committee.
The Committee is responsible for drafting any proactive legislation that the FJA would like to pursue, assist staff in drafting position papers and amendments and to act as an advisory group during the state’s legislative session on issues within the expertise of its members.
Michaels is currently an FJA board member, is on the organization’s executive committee and is the Miami-Dade County Vanguard Chair .
The FJA is dedicated to strengthening and upholding Florida’s civil justice system and protecting the rights of Florida’s citizens and consumers.
The FJA believes that all Floridians benefit when deserving individuals have a fair chance to seek justice in our state’s courts and that Florida’s consumers are made safer when large corporations and industries are held to a high ethical standard and accept fair responsibility for their actions.
FJA works in the legislative, political and public arenas to ensure that Floridians know and understand the importance of their rights to justice and to make certain that these rights, which are at the very core of what it means to be American, are safeguarded and protected.
An 8-year-old boy is in critical condition after nearly drowning in a pool on Royal Caribbean’s Anthem of the Seas cruise ship Thursday afternoon.
The Coast Guard said the boy had been in the water for 8 to 10 minutes before cruise officials found him, the Associated Press reports. Medical representatives performed CPR on him before a helicopter landed on the ship to take him to a hospital, company officials told Today.
“Our thoughts and prayers are with the family that has been changed by this tragedy. We hold public pools, community pools and private pools to high codes and industry standards across the United States. It is time for the cruise lines to be held to the same safety level” says The Haggard Law Firm’s Managing Partner Michael Haggard.
The Haggard Law Firm, has represented a number of families who’ve had to deal with significant injury or death of a loved one in drowning accidents. The Firm’s work representing victims of drownings has spurred changes in state codes and laws governing pool safety.
“The cruise lines are well aware that people come on their ships to let down their guard and take a break from everyday life. They are well aware of the dangers inherent in swimming pools and so many of their activities. The fact that basic pool safety is ignored is simply astonishing” says The Haggard Law Firm’s Todd Michaels.
The cruise industry earns nearly $40 billion* in revenue per year and it is only growing as cruise lines continue to build and sail new ships. The growth will lead to more tragedies if investments into pool safety measures and new standards are not made.
Michaels adds “cruise ships are floating cities with a thousand dangers lurking around every corner. How many people have to die or suffer serious injury before the cruise lines get serious about safety? ”
Haggard Law Conducts Negligent Security Seminar During the FJA Convention this Week
Todd Michaels lead a seminar yesterday during the 2016 Florida Justice Association’s Annual Convention in Palm Beach. Michaels discussed the ins and outs of trying a negligent security case in Florida.
The seminar was part of the FJA’s Young Lawyers Seminar Series. Michaels is currently an FJA board member, the Miami-Dade County Vanguard Chair and will begin a term on the organization’s Executive Committee next week.
Recently, Michaels delivered a $1 million settlement to the family of Miguel Pilotos in a negligent security case. The 71-year-old was gunned down in a supermarket parking lot in 2013. In the last 10 years, The Haggard Law Firm has handled over 150 negligent security cases and delivered over $340 million in verdicts and settlements in those cases.
When you argue that your client’s injuries could have been prevented through the use of reasonable security measures, the defendant will claim those measures are excessive or unnecessary. So what are reasonable measures, and how can you help the jury view the case through your eyes? You must first go to the crime scene and begin reviewing any security efforts that the defendant undertook.
A crucial part of evidence development in these cases is examining the premises and putting the security measures into context. For example, a client was stabbed to death in his aunt’s apartment complex parking lot as he went to the vending machines near the community swimming pool.1 The complex gave a rent-free unit to a courtesy security officer who was also a local police officer and claimed to perform three daily patrols around the property with an enormous dog and a pistol. She also submitted observation reports to management. I was deflated by this proactive security regime until the officer and on-site managers were deposed.
Through public record requests, I obtained the officer’s call schedule for her official police duties for the previous three years. The three daily patrols she claimed she conducted could not be reconciled with her documented obligations for the city police department. The nuisance crimes of vandalism and drug use at the community swimming pool were incompatible with her insistence that once she locked the common area amenities at night, the property was under control. And somehow her fellow officers failed to inform her of four robberies and a carjacking that occurred at the complex while she lived there. At trial, the plaintiff’s counsel was able to expose this façade, and the jury found the complex was 100 percent liable.
In another case, my client was shot in the face at a gas station near the Miami-Dade County Fairgrounds during the annual fair. My first few visits to the property were unremarkable, so I wondered how we could convince any jury that this ordinary gas station should have employed security. So we waited to visit again until the next year’s county fair.
By comparing surveillance video from a normal Friday night with video from the same time and date during the following year’s county fair, we were able to show the massive increase in foot and vehicle traffic during the fair. We did not advocate that there was anything wrong with the gas station itself – but we explained that for two weeks each year, it assumed an entirely different criminal profile, and increased security measures should have been deployed. Understanding your site will help you stay focused on the defendant’s duty to appreciate the foreseeable risk and act on it.
(Pictured: Attorney Christopher Marlowe)
Sometimes, when security is compromised, there will be a debate about whether armed or unarmed security was appropriate for a property. The jury is unlikely to punish a defendant for choosing unarmed over armed guards if the choice was based on intelligence and made after informed deliberations.
Other security decisions become central to the case. Premises owners and managers often use security vendors, who make recommendations for protecting the property against crime. The vendor invariably will have suggested implementing the most comprehensive security system, but the defendant chose a lesser program due to cost. Driving a wedge between the vendor and the property manager becomes very important, and you can do this with the assistance of either entity’s former employees. Defendants usually are not on the same page as their vendors about crime on the premises, the necessary remedies, or the rationale for the choices made.
Familiarity with crimes that occurred on the property is fundamental. Do not rely on crime statistics or grids. Read every police report from the property, going back at least three years from your client’s assault. What may appear to be a simple property crime can yield the greatest notice and foreseeability witnesses. For example, a police report showing theft of a cell phone from a vehicle may appear trivial and unrelated on its face. However, the victim of that property crime often will have reported it to management and felt violated by that intrusion, especially if it happened more than once. The best witness regarding notice of on-premises crimes may be a robbery victim who constantly complained to management.
As the defendant tries to distract your attention from the core issues, refocus the case on specific criminal incidents and what the defendant failed to do in response to each. Make sure to use police reports when deposing the defendant – it will force them to admit, repeatedly, that they either did not know of the crime or that they did not make any changes in response to it. Specific crimes will help you show the jury that your case is not about crime generally or in the city where the property is located – it is about crime on this specific property.
Negligent security cases can consume thousands of hours from inception to conclusion. You must contend with both criminal and civil investigations, witnesses who may reasonably fear retribution, properties in crime-ridden areas, and even clients whose presence at the time of the incident concerns jurors. To get past these difficulties, it is crucial to maintain your focus on proving that the defendant’s security measures were inadequate.
Learn more about The Haggard Law Firm by clicking here
Notes:
1. Almaguer v. MIG Pines Dev., Ltd., No. 08-50972 CA 21 (Fla., Broward Co. Cir., Mar. 25, 2010).
It was the day after Thanksgiving. Two year old Soleila Estien was taking a nap with her father in the family’s apartment in Hollywood, Florida. Her mother Vahnessa was at work, and Grandma had just dozed off with a book. Everything about this beautiful Friday afternoon was warm and pleasant.
Dad was startled awake not long after he and Soleila lay down on the couch together. She was gone. As parents usually do when searching for their toddler, dad looked behind couches, in closets, and other such places where little ones amuse themselves with hide and seek. Not having found Soleila after a diligent search while calling her name, dad woke grandmom and the two began looking with greater urgency and rising concern.
They searched in the parking lot, around trees, under cars, throughout the complex and around the apartment complex pool, and their calls turned to cries and desperate screams for Soleila. Then they saw. On the edge of the pool there sat Soleila’s little flip flops. The outline of her little body was now apparent on the bottom of the pool..
The apartment complex where young Soleila died was an aquatic safety disgrace. The gates to the pool were neither self-closing nor self-latching. The laundry facilities were located within the pool deck area, prompting residents to leave the gate open so they could carry clothes baskets back and forth without bothering with the lock. When Grabiel pulled his unconscious little girl from the water, there was no telephone on the deck to dial 911. Against time and fate he tried CPR while carrying her back to the apartment, but she was dead.
Drowning is the leading cause of injury-related death for children one to four years of age. In Florida, drowning is the leading cause of all deaths for this age category, and Florida has the highest drowning death rate for children under the age of five. For obvious good reason, federal, state and local laws have addressed these preventable accidents by attempting to regulate the safe operation of residential pool facilities.
In Soleila’s case, for example, The City of Hollywood Code of Ordinances, § 158.04 reads, in pertinent part:
“Every outdoor private swimming pool shall be completely surrounded by a fence, wall, or enclosure in accordance with the 2007 Florida Building Code, and 2009 Supplement. Such fence, wall, or enclosure shall remain in place at all times and shall not be readily removable….All gates or doors opening through such enclosure shall be equipped with a self-closing and self-
latching device for keeping the gate or door securely closed at all times when not in actual use.”
The Florida Department of Health regulation 64E-9.006(2)(h) requires that:
“All public pools shall be surrounded by a minimum 48 inch high fence or other substantial barrier approved by the department. The fence shall be continuous around the perimeter of the pool area that is not otherwise blocked or obstructed by adjacent buildings or structures and shall adjoin with itself or abut to the adjacent members. Access through the barrier or fence from dwelling units such as homes, apartments, motel rooms, and hotel rooms, shall be through self-closing self-latching lockable gates of 48 inch minimal height from the floor or ground with the latch located a minimum of 54 inches from the bottom of the gate or at least 3 inches below the top of the gate on the pool side.”
Florida Statute 515.27 and 515.29 read in pertinent part, respectively:
“All doors providing direct access from the home to the pool must be equipped with a self-closing, self-latching device with a release mechanism placed no lower than 54 inches above the floor.”
“Gates that provide access to swimming pools must open outward away from the pool and be self-closing and equipped with a self-latching locking device, the release mechanism of which must be located on the pool side of the gate and so placed that it cannot be reached by a young child over the top or through any opening or gap.”
While these laws were written with the deaths of so many innocent children in mind, too many communities either ignore them or are unaware of their existence. Acutely aware of this reality, Vahnessa and Grabiel Estien have shaped their personal tragedy into a motivating force for change and education. Since that most awful day, they have managed the toughest feat that parents often have after losing a child – staying together. And together, they have put one foot in front of the other, as one, and their newly inspired lives are making swimming pools everywhere safer as a result.
Fast forward six years from the death of their beloved daughter, and the Estien family has been blessed with the births of two sons. Teaching them to swim and enjoy the water was a sacred priority for both Vahnessa and Grabiel. They did not want their boys to fear the water. But they were determined to ensure that their children respected it and that the adults responsible for aquatic facilities did their part to responsibly operate their pools.
After the civil matter relating directly to Soleila was resolved, the family started the Soleila G. Estien Memorial Swim Strong Scholarship. The family persuaded local businesses to fund donations for families who could not independently afford swimming lessons for their children. One of the most effective awareness tools for these businesses was the book Vahnessa Estien wrote in honor of her daughter, entitled “The Boy Who Could Swim.” It is a children’s book, written with as much heart, positive messaging and hope as any story borne of tragedy possibly could be. Parents can enjoy reading to their children a positive and enjoyable story of hope, courage and safety thanks to the courage Vahnessa had to write this book.
Vahnessa and Grabiel searched their souls after their daughter’s death. Somehow they managed, for the sake of their marriage and their sons, to find the will and power to harness their grief toward a positive goal. I am certainly proud of the work we did for the family and the outcome that was achieved. However, I am mostly thankful to the Estiens who, through their own grief process, are a constant reminder to me that what we do as advocates has the ability to contribute, even a little, to the manner in which our clients live the remainder of their lives after tragedies most of us would fear to even imagine. Certainly, doing what we do every day would be much more difficult, if not impossible, were it not for clients such as these, who through their efforts, are making the next tragedy less likely than those which came before.
Article first appeared in Southern Trial Lawyer’s Association’s newsletter JUSTLAW
