Wet Floor Slip and Fall Accident in Florida

*All names have been changed to protect case members’ identities.

Summary of the Slip and Fall Accident in Ft. Lauderdale

The plaintiff, Javier, sued a local South Florida restaurant for personal injury when he slipped and fell on a wet floor on their property. Cohen & Cohen showed that the business was liable and won $250,000 in damages.

Details of the Accident

Javier, a local business owner, was invited to the defendant’s restaurant one evening around 5:00 pm. Prior to being seated, Javier went to the restroom. When he entered the room and began walking toward the urinals, he immediately slipped on a puddle of water on the floor. As he fell, Javier slammed his right shoulder against the base of the sink, landing on his back on the floor.

Damages and Injuries Claimed

Javier suffered the following injuries as a direct result of the accident:

• A labral tear with a split bicep tendon
• SLAP Type-2 complex lesion
• Adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder)
• This was a result of the necessary surgery from the above injuries
• Multiple surgeries
• Months of physical therapy
• Numerous MRIs, CT arthrograms, injections, and more

Javier was also required to keep his right arm completely immobilized in a sling for several weeks at a time while healing from these injuries.

Liabilities

We believed that the defendants were liable because the restaurant should have noticed and cleaned up the puddle immediately. Cohen & Cohen fought for these rights to be offered to Javier, and other future South Florida patrons:

• To warn of the existence of a wet floor, of which they should have had greater knowledge than Javier
• To protect Javier from foreseeable risks
• To use reasonable care in maintaining their premises
• To warn of the possibly dangerous condition
• To place floor mats or warning signs at the appropriate places in the restaurant

Liability was clear in this premises liability case because:

• The defendant knew that people would be using this area of the restaurant
• The defendant’s agents and/or employees should have taken reasonable steps to alert their customers of the dangerous condition by using warning signs, cones, or other appropriate notices
• The defendant’s agents and/or employees failed to protect Javier from reasonable foreseeable risks
• Rather than warn its customer, agents, and/or employees, the defendant chose to ignore the dangerous condition
• The defendant’s agents and/or employees failed to place warning signs and/or floor mats at appropriate locations throughout the restaurant