This was a general negligence subrogation matter stemming from a blockage in the sewer line, resulting in damage.

Plaintiff contended that our client owed a legal duty to perform preventative maintenance that would have avoided the sewage back-up that caused the property owners’ damage. However, Plaintiff did not have any witness testify as to the existence of such a duty. As a result, the trial court granted our Motion for Directed Verdict.

On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the duty to perform preventative maintenance is a statutory obligation under Florida Statutes § 718.108 and § 718.113. However, because the statutory legal duty was raised for the first time on appeal, the argument was deemed waived, and the directed verdict was affirmed.

We defended an aircraft repair facility against claims of corrosion that allegedly occurred due to routine aircraft cleanings. We successfully obtained a dismissal of all claims against our client and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal by Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal.

The underlying lawsuit involved allegations of nursing home negligence. Plaintiff named an individual and a corporation in their Complaint who were not licensees of the facility. As such, the defense filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of F.S. §400.023, but that motion was denied by the trial court. Wicker Smith filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, arguing that the trial court’s decision constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law for which there would be no adequate remedy by final appeal. The 4th DCA agreed and granted the petition, finding that “The trial court failed to follow section 400.023 in denying the Motion to Dismiss” and “Respondent did not allege the crucial element that Petitioners had performed under a contract or received a fee for the services performed.”

While this decision was issued without prejudice, it will preclude the tactic of including non-licensees as parties in the initial complaint in the future.

Plaintiff sued Wicker Smith’s client, a major Atlanta-based airline, in Federal court and alleged she suffered a compression fracture in her spine as the result of a hard landing on a flight from Fort Lauderdale to Raleigh. The defense of this case was initially problematic because Plaintiff produced medical records showing she was diagnosed with a compression fracture of her spine shortly after the landing and she ultimately underwent spinal surgery to correct the condition.

After disclosing the opinions of defense experts, Wicker Smith moved for summary judgment and established there was no evidence of a “hard landing”.  Plaintiff opposed the summary judgment.  In a series of Court Orders, the trial court granted our motion to strike the Plaintiff’s piloting expert and also granted our motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff appealed these decisions. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment and adopted the arguments and law from our appellate brief.  This opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit will now provide helpful legal precedent on these issues moving forward.

Orlando Partner, Michael D'Lugo, and West Palm Beach Partners, Mark Ruff and Nicholas Seamster, recently prevailed in a matter heard by the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. This was a professional negligence claim brought by a contractor against our client, an engineer, stemming from the construction of two sewage pump stations. The Plaintiff claimed that our client negligently designed and negligently administered the project, causing the contractor to fall behind and to be improperly terminated by the city that had originally commissioned the project. The Plaintiff sought over $12 million in actual and consequential damages. Several counts of the Complaint were disposed of via summary judgment prior to trial, and Mark Ruff and Nicholas Seamster tried the case on the remaining counts in Palm Beach County, Florida, in February 2022. Although the jury awarded approximately $100,000 in damages and split the liability equally between the Plaintiff and our client, we moved for a directed verdict which was granted post-trial. Plaintiff appealed the directed verdict in June 2023, and Michael D’Lugo filed our Answer Brief in October 2023. In early June, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed without discussion on all issues related to our client.

FORT LAUDERDALE – NOVEMBER 29, 2022 – Wicker Smith’s Aviation practice team, led by Fort Lauderdale partner Christopher Jahr, recently had a trial court’s summary judgment ruling affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The subject case arose from a negligence claim made against our client, a major Atlanta-based airline. Plaintiff sued our client in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she suffered a compression fracture in her spine as the result of a hard landing during a 2019 flight from Fort Lauderdale to Raleigh. The defense of this case was initially problematic because Plaintiff produced medical records showing she was diagnosed with a compression fracture of her spine shortly after the landing and she ultimately underwent spinal surgery to correct the condition. Our aviation-litigation team immediately went to work assembling an excellent team of expert witnesses. The scope of expert testimony included a biomechanical engineer, an orthopedic surgeon, and a piloting expert who worked together to prepare opinion testimony that the impact during the landing was normal and the landing could not have medically caused the claimed injuries. The biomechanical engineer based his analysis, in part, on the lack of any “hard landing” data reported by the aircraft. The lack of “hard landing” data enabled him to conclude the vertical force was less than 2.1 g and within the tolerances of a normal landing. In addition, the orthopedic expert interpreted the MRI taken two (2) weeks after the subject landing to show an “age indeterminate” fracture that was consistent with osteoporosis – and not caused by trauma. Adding to the complexity of this defense was that all of the above experts were retained and prepared in less than thirty days so as to comply with the incredibly tight time limitations provided in the original Trial Order. After disclosing the above expert opinions, our team moved for summary judgment and argued there was no evidence of a “hard landing” and there was no evidence the alleged “hard landing” caused the claimed injuries. Plaintiff opposed the summary judgment by untimely disclosing a single “piloting expert” and improperly relying upon medical records to establish medical causation. In a series of well-reasoned Court Orders, the trial court granted our motion to strike the Plaintiff’s piloting expert and also granted our motion for summary judgment. In her appeal, Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in striking her piloting expert because he was “of the utmost importance” to her case. She also argued the trial court improperly denied her attempt to extend the pre-trial disclosure deadlines. However, the appellate court found these arguments unpersuasive and irrelevant. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment and referenced the arguments in our motion for summary judgment that Plaintiff had failed to disclose or present any admissible evidence that the “hard landing” medically caused her claimed injuries. This opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit will now provide helpful legal precedent on these issues moving forward. Congratulations to the Aviation team on this important victory. For more details, read the full opinion here: Opinion - Affirmance (PDF). Follow Wicker Smith on LinkedIn for more updates on the firm.