Articles Tagged with west-palm-beach-injury-lawyer-blog

Property owners have an inherent duty to protect all persons lawfully on the property from unreasonable risk of harm. When it comes to children, that standard is somewhat heightened in that youths are not presumed to have the knowledge or maturity to protect themselves from obvious harm or danger. concretebroken

The recent case of Ruiz v. Victory Props., LLC details a case where reportedly dangerous conditions in the back yard of an apartment complex indirectly led to serious head injuries sustained by a 7-year-old girl who lived there.

Trial court granted summary judgment to defendant, finding the girl’s injuries were not a foreseeable risk of the dangerous conditions that existed. The court noted that to decide otherwise might have the unintended consequence of making land owners reticent to rent property to families with children. The appellate court, though, later backed by the Connecticut Supreme Court, reversed, finding ample evidence the land owner had a basic duty to keep the site clear of hazards that might be dangerous to children, and further that a reasonable argument could be made that this breach of duty resulted in the girl’s injuries.

A personal injury lawsuit will not be allowed to proceed after a court found the plaintiff had improperly engaged in “claim-splitting,” a process barred by nearly every court in the country. parking

In the case of Carpenter v. Kenneth Thompson Builder, Inc., it doesn’t appear the plaintiff acted with any maliciousness. Rather, the actions reflect a last-ditch effort to ensure all relevant defendants were included in the litigation. A big part of the problem, however, was that attorneys waited until the last minute to file an amended complaint. When it became clear a hearing on the matter wouldn’t be held prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations on the claim, a second lawsuit was filed, followed with a request to join the two cases.

However, our West Palm Beach injury lawyers understand the end result was that both cases were dismissed for impermissible claim-splitting. The whole fiasco likely could have been avoided if the complaint had been amended sooner, particularly given the fact that attorneys were aware of the secondary defendants’ identities a year in advance of the statute of limitations expiration.