If you were injured or lost a loved one in a condo collapse accident, then you will want to find the top condo collapse accident attorneys that you can find. You will want to call the best Miami personal injury lawyers to help you and your family to investigate the accident and pursue full, fair, and complete compensation from all responsible parties. Does that mean you need the biggest personal injury firm to represent your interests? Not necessarily. You need the best personal injury law firm to handle your case and represent your interests. At Wolfson & Leon in Miami, our personal injury attorneys and wrongful death lawyers have defended the rights of the injured and the families of those lost since 1963. That is 58 years of helping injury victims in Florida. Call now for your free consultation at (305) 285-1115. Wolfson & Leon never charges a fee unless they make a financial recovery for you.

The time after any accident is very important. In the case of a condo collapse accident with injuries and death, every minute is crucial. The investigation will be extensive and will include condominium accident experts examining architectural designs and plans; engineering processes; materials used in construction; maintenance records; and code violations. Any condo collapse personal injury lawyer will need to be prepared to spend the time and the money to get the answers needed to hold the responsible parties accountable. Finding and retaining the best condo collapse personal injury attorney in Miami as soon as possible will likely be in your best interests. The personal injury legal team at Wolfson & Leon is standing by to answer your questions at absolutely no cost. Call (305) 285-1115 right now – we can help.

Surfside Condo Collapse

Buc-ee’s is an expansive convenience store and gas station located in the South. With aisles of food, merchandise, and other specialty items, it is an excellent place to stop while traveling or making your way home from work. Yet, with so much going on, accidents can happen. You might be hit by a car driving through the parking lot or slip inside the store.

Big corporations, like Buc-ee’s, often have legal teams whose sole job is to keep their costs down in the event of an accident. They may offer you a quick settlement or drag their feet when addressing your claim. Either way, this puts you at risk of not getting the monetary damages you are entitled to.

When you’ve been badly hurt in Buc-ee’s, or any other convenience store, you should reach out for help from the best Florida accident injury lawyer you can find. Our Florida personal injury lawyers have defended the rights of people hurt in car crashes, slips and falls, medication errors, and other accidents since 1963. If you’ve been gravely injured in an accident, call us today for a free evaluation of your case. There is no cost to find out what your rights are and what legal action you might be able to take. Call us right now at (305) 285-1115.

If you were badly injured from an accident at a 7-Eleven store in Florida, it is a good idea that you should reach out to the best Florida personal injury law firm for help. It may feel intimidating to call a lawyer when you’ve been hurt. Perhaps you think you can’t afford to get legal help. But if you don’t know what your legal rights are, it can cost you far more. Find about your legal rights by calling Wolfson & Leon today any time day or night at 305-285-1115. We represent injured victims throughout Florida.

History of 7-Eleven Stores

Back in 1927, John Jefferson Green started the Tote’m Store. The establishment sold ice to customers. Seeing a need for customers to buy essential grocery items at stores that were closer to their homes, Green added bread, eggs, and milk to his product mix. In the late 1920s, some Tote’m Stores were equipped with gas stations.

When you are strolling down the aisles of your local Sprouts Farmers Market, you may be focused on picking up your groceries for the week or grabbing a few things for tonight’s dinner.  You don’t expect to get hurt, but it can happen. And when it does, we don’t know what to do.

When badly injured in an accident, it’s a good idea to reach out to a best Florida personal injury lawyer for help. It can be scary to call a lawyer, or perhaps you don’t think you can afford legal advice. But you can find yourself in a bad spot when you do not know what your rights are. At Wolfson & Leon, we provide you with a free consultation. We review the specifics around your accident and answer your questions about damages and what legal remedies may be available.  It costs you nothing to learn what your options are and everything if you don’t.  Call the Florida personal injury lawyers at Wolfson & Leon today for help.

Sprouts Farmers Market Background

Our community has suffered through the COVID Pandemic for months. In addition to various rules and regulations, many companies have also enacted masking rules for customers. But the question is just how far can a corporation go in the enforcement of masking rules?

Consider if a customer entered a Publix to purchase coffee. She is asked by a Publix employee to adjust her mask which had slipped below her nose. She adjusts the mask as requested. Subsequently, another Publix employee directs a security guard to go to that same customer. As the Publix security guard approaches the customer at the check-out, the customer reaches for a bag and her mask slipped below her nose again. The security guard tells the customer to fix her mask. The customer fixes it and says to the security guard “Will you get away from me now?”. The guard responds “I will drag you out of here”. Then the guard pulls and fires a Taser into the customer’s back and injuring her.

What should the customer do? Even if another Publix employee tries to usher the injured customer out, she should stand her ground and demand to make a report with the manager. Thereafter, the injured customer should call the Miami personal injury lawyers at Wolfson & Leon so a lawsuit can be filed on her behalf in Miami-Dade Circuit Court.

court-roomOn February 20, 2020, the Third District Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment in a Miami slip and fall case. In Williams v. Ryta Food Corp., 3rd District Case No. 3D19-0126, the Third District reversed Judge Abby Cynamon’s ruling in the 11th Circuit.

At the trial court level in Miami, Judge Cynamon struck a witness affidavit presented by the Plaintiff in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.  Judge Cynamon relied on a case commonly relied upon by Defendants to strike affidavits.  That case, Ellison v. Anderson, 74 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 1954), contains a ruling from the Florida Supreme Court that “a party when met by a [m]otion for [s]ummary [j]udgment should not be permitted by his [or her] own affidavit, or by that of another to baldly repudiate his [or her] previous deposition so as to create a jury issue.”  Id.  And, because Judge Cynamon struck the affidavit, she found there to be no issues as to any material fact regarding actual or constructive notice.  Thus, because there was no evidence that the Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the purportedly dangerous condition, per Florida Statute 768.0755(1), Judge Cynamon granted Summary Judgment against the Plaintiff.

In the instant matter, the Third DCA noted that, while Ellison is the law, a “party may file a subsequent affidavit for the purpose of explaining testimony given at a prior deposition, provided the explanation is credible and not inconsistent with the previous sworn testimony”.  Ouellete v. Patel, 967 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2007).  In the instant case, the Third DCA noted that the original witness testimony regarding the substance was that it was clear and that the witness did not know its origin.  The subsequent affidavit described the puddle of water as “very long” and noted that there were “several track marks or footprints going in both directions”.  The Third DCA pointed out that this did not baldly repudiate the prior testimony.  Rather, there were only two prior areas of inquiry and the area that the new affidavit touched upon had not been previously asked or testified to.  They also pointed out that there was a video showing that the area of the alleged substance had not been looked at for about 20 minutes.  And, in a footnote, the Third DCA mentioned that “For good reason: the judicial landscape is littered with reversals of summary judgments where Ellison has been misapplied” Id.

courtroom-300x225-300x225The Florida Courts seem determined to factually analyze every substance known to man and whether that substance and the specific condition it is in can serve as evidence of constructive notice.  Constructive notice is important in slip and fall cases these days because Florida Statute 768.0755 places the burden on the plaintiff to prove that a business establishment had constructive notice.  The only other way to have a case, per the statute, is to show that the condition occurred with regularity or that the defendant had actual knowledge of the substance.  So, in Florida, we have a body of case law that goes substance by substance and picks apart the substance from a factual basis to determine whether the person who slipped on that substance has a material issue of fact that can be presented to a jury.  This case by case analysis goes from fruit to fruit and frozen substance to frozen substance.  There seems to be no end to the various foods, chemicals, compounds, molecules, drinks, and items of all kinds that the Florida Courts will look at.

If you look at the history of the case law, there is some irony in all of this.  The Courts have ruled upon thawed ice cream (Camina v. Parliament Insurance, 417 So. 2d 1093 (3rd DCA 1982)), partially frozen peas (Teate v. Winn-Dixie, 524 SO. 2d 1060 (3rd DCA 1988)), partially liquified orange juice concentrate (Grizzard v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 330 So. 2d 768 (1st DCA 1976)), dirty water (Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hospitals of Florida, 211 So. 3d 275 (3rd DCA 2017), and other substances.  The irony is that the evaluation that they are supposed to be making is whether there is any issue as to material fact.  But, in analyzing the substances down to the molecules, most of these cases seem to make factual determinations that should be within the sole province of a jury.  It seems inconsistent to say that there must be an absence of a material issue of fact and then spend considerable time factually picking apart, analyzing, and determining that a substances specific condition does or does not tend to prove constructive notice.  Going on a case by case basis and looking at each substance and how it may or may not serve as evidence of constructive notice is no different than the job a jury, in the end, must do.

Now, recently, on February 19, 2020, the Fourth DCA ruled upon a grape.  In Oliver v. Winn-Dixie Stores, (No. 4D19-291), the 4th DCA held that a clear and dirty liquid with a red or purple speck in it that looked like it had been smeared upon the ground was not enough for Brandy Oliver to get to a jury.  They cited the absence of wheel tracks and footprints and found there to be no issue of material fact.  The 4th DCA leaned upon the testimony of an employee that he passed by the area repeatedly and that the floor was clean and dry moments before the fall.  But, apparently, there was a video that was not part of the record.  And, this video, according the Plaintiff, tended to show he was not looking carefully.  Moreover, there was no discussion whatsoever of how the condition was created.

blog6-300x300Recently, in an Orange County personal injury sexual abuse case, the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled on issues surrounding improper closing arguments and a directed verdict.   On January 31, 2019, in the case of Jagger Ferguson v. Orange County, (Florida 5th DCA 2019) Case No. 5D18-2405, they reversed the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict in favor of the Plaintiff and the granting of a mistrial for improper closing arguments.

The case arises out of an alleged sexual abuse and resulting post-traumatic stress disorder that occurred during Mr. Ferguson’s jail tour.  He was doing a jail tour as part of a juvenile diversion program.   After a defense verdict was entered, the Trial Court entered a directed verdict against the Defendant finding that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.  And, the Trial Court granted a mistrial, ruling that Defense Counsel violated two orders on motions in limine.  The first order prevented the defendant from showing the jury an unredacted document that showed the Plaintiff was doing the jail tour as part of a diversion program.  The defense lawyer violated that order showing the unredacted document to the jury.  The second order prevented Defendant from mentioning that Plaintiff had a collateral source that may pay for any medical treatment he needed in the future.  The defense lawyer also blatantly violated that order, stating that the Plaintiff’s current employer, the United States Army, would “take care of its own”.

In reversing the grant of a directed verdict, Justice Evander, who penned the decision, reasoned that, while it was true that no reasonable jury could find that the Plaintiff was comparatively negligent, the jury could have entered the defense verdict on the basis of lack of causation.  On the issue of the mistrial and violation of the orders on motions in limine, the 5th DCA applied the standard of fundamental error because no objections were made contemporaneously with the violation of the Court orders.  Applying that standard, Justice Evander referred to the case of Murphy v. International Robotic-Systems, Inc. 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000).   The 5th DCA held that “[a]lthough defense counsel’s aforementioned arguments were clearly improper, we cannot conclude that they were incurable or that they ‘so damaged the fairness of the trial that the public’s interests in our system of justice requires a new trial.’”  Murphy, 766 So.2d at 1031.

Revel-3Revel electric mopeds are now available for rent in a specifically designated area of Miami. There are 750 rental mopeds available in Miami and Revel has approximately 30 employees to provide service to the mopeds and for the customers. But what happens when someone is injured in a Revel moped accident? The answer is not entirely clear. That is why the Miami Revel Accident Lawyers at Wolfson & Leon are standing by to help any person injured in a Revel moped accident. If you were injured in a Revel electric moped accident, call the Miami car accident attorneys at Wolfson & Leon at (305) 285-1115 for your free consultation.

Revel Rental Mopeds Now in Miami

The list of locations, aside from Miami, that Revel rents mopeds in includes Queens and Brooklyn in New York; Oakland California; Austin Texas; and Washington DC. The mopeds provided by Revel are made by NIU Technologies which is based in China.

Miami-AMEvery year, more and more people are deciding to make the move to South Florida. The small strip of coastline positioned between a swamp and the Atlantic Ocean provides year-round summer weather and plenty of sunshine. With such a small area that millions of residents call home, space can be limited. When the demand is high and supply is limited, the prices go up. The South Florida housing market has been well known for being the most expensive in Florida overall.

Residents looking to buy property will generally have to pay a higher price tag in South Florida than they would in other parts of the state for a similar property. If we focus in on Miami and the surrounding areas, it is estimated that the median home value is around $335,000. With families or individuals looking for a home, but cannot afford the luxury of owning a home, their only option is to lease. According to reports, an estimated median for rent in Miami is around $1715 a month. The high costs are another factor, but if we combine this with the availability of space, people must find a home that is affordable and available. With most of the land in South Florida already developed, the only place to add housing is upward. That is why condominiums have become a huge factor in being able to house so many people in such a small space.

Since 2012, reports state there have been 20,000 condo units built or planned for building along the South Florida coast. Condominiums have become a staple for the surrounding areas and the availability provides an easier housing solution for individuals and small families. As attractive as they have become, deciding to live in a condominium comes with several factors. One cannot simply just rent a condo and move in. Individuals that decide to lease or purchase a condominium, must apply and be approved to live in the unit. This application and approval process comes with a fee that can differ depending on the association and property management group. This fee can encompass several services, such as background and credit screening, move in and move out charges or even a general management fee. This appears to be a normal process, but what if the fee that is being paid is not only high in price but also is against the law.

Contact Information