{"id":1934,"date":"2016-11-09T09:58:36","date_gmt":"2016-11-09T14:58:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.southfloridainjuryattorneys-blog.com\/?p=1022"},"modified":"2019-07-18T11:56:50","modified_gmt":"2019-07-18T15:56:50","slug":"appellate-court-explains-landowners-duty-prevent-slip-fall-accidents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ceceresantana.com\/es\/appellate-court-explains-landowners-duty-prevent-slip-fall-accidents\/","title":{"rendered":"Appellate Court Explains a Landowner\u2019s Duty to Prevent Slip-and-Fall Accidents"},"content":{"rendered":"

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Kentucky issued a written opinion outlining how lower courts should analyze premises liability claims. In the case, Goodwin v. Al J. Schneider Company<\/em><\/a>, the highest court in the state held that the lower courts misapplied the relevant analysis in dismissing the plaintiff\u2019s lawsuit.<\/p>\n

The Facts of the Case<\/strong><\/p>\n

Goodwin and his wife were attending a convention in the defendant\u2019s hotel. On his second day at the hotel, Goodwin slipped and fell as he attempted to enter the shower, injuring his knee. The shower had a grab bar to assist guests in entering the shower, but there was no shower mat. Other rooms in the hotel did have both a grab bar and a shower mat, and after Goodwin\u2019s fall, the hotel provided him and his wife with a shower mat for the remainder of their stay.<\/p>\n

Goodwin filed a premises liability lawsuit against the hotel, claiming that the hotel was negligent in failing to provide a shower mat. The hotel responded to the claim by asserting that it did not have a duty to provide both a shower mat and a grab bar, and that by providing a grab bar, the hotel\u2019s duty was met. Furthermore, the hotel claimed that Goodwin\u2019s fall was due to his own carelessness.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The trial court granted the defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment, holding that a wet bathtub is an \u201copen and obvious\u201d danger, and there was nothing especially dangerous about this specific tub. The court explained that the hotel did not have a duty to protect guests from this type of open and obvious hazard. Goodwin appealed to a higher court.<\/p>\n

The state\u2019s highest court reversed the lower court\u2019s decision. The court explained that the lower court conflated a landowner\u2019s duty and the question of whether that duty was breached. Here, the court noted, there is no question that the hotel had a duty to protect guests from any hazard \u2013 obvious or hidden. The question the lower court should have answered was whether the steps taken by the hotel to remedy the hazard were sufficient. This is an analysis of the \u201cbreach\u201d element of a premises liability claim.<\/p>\n

As a result of the court\u2019s holding, the case will be sent back down to the lower court to conduct the proper analysis.<\/p>\n

Have You Been Injured in a South Florida Slip-and-Fall Accident?<\/strong><\/p>\n

If you or a loved one has recently been injured in any kind of South Florida slip-and-fall<\/a> accident, you may be entitled to monetary compensation. As you can see from the above discussion, premises liability cases can be complex and require precise analysis. A skilled attorney from the Florida personal injury law firm of Cecere Santana can help you navigate the complex questions that may arise throughout the course of your case. Call 800-753-5529 to set up a free consultation today.<\/p>\n

More Blog Posts:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Attorneys at Cecere Santana Share Driving Tips for Teens to Prevent Fatal Accidents<\/a>, Cecere Santana Injury Lawyers Blog, published October 19, 2016.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Kentucky issued a written opinion outlining how lower courts should analyze premises liability claims. In the case, Goodwin v. Al J. Schneider Company, the highest court in the state held that the lower courts misapplied the relevant analysis in dismissing the plaintiff\u2019s lawsuit. The Facts of the Case … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Appellate Court Explains a Landowner\u2019s Duty to Prevent Slip-and-Fall Accidents”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[58],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-1934","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-premises-liability"},"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ceceresantana.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1934","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ceceresantana.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ceceresantana.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ceceresantana.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ceceresantana.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1934"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ceceresantana.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1934\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ceceresantana.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ceceresantana.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ceceresantana.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}