Latest Premises Liability Verdict & Settlement News

Browse all verdict news articles related to premises liability cases.

04/15/26 April 15th, 2026 - Florida Premises Liability

$300,000 Verdict Against Carnival After Crew Over Serves Passenger 14 Shots of Tequila on Cruise Ship

A six-person federal jury in Miami awarded $300,000 to Diana Sanders, a 45-year-old California nurse, after finding that Carnival Corporation was negligent for serving her at least 14 shots of tequila in under nine hours aboard the Carnival Radiance. The verdict, returned on April 10, 2026, exceeded the $250,000 Sanders's legal team had requested at trial. The jury found Carnival 60% at fault and Sanders 40% responsible for her injuries.Case at a Glance Verdict: $300,000 Case Type: Premises Liability (Alcohol Over-service) Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami) Verdict Date: April 10, 2026 Plaintiff: Diana Sanders Defendant: Carnival Corporation Plaintiff Attorney: Spencer Aronfeld, Aronfeld Trial Lawyers (Coral Gables, FL) Fault Split: 60% Carnival / 40% SandersWhat Happened Aboard the Carnival Radiance? On January 5, 2024, Diana Sanders was a passenger on the Carnival Radiance when crew members served her at least 14 shots of tequila between approximately 2:58 pm and 11:37 pm, a span of 8 hours and 39 minutes. Shortly after the last drink was served, between 11:45 pm and approximately 12:20 am, Sanders suffered a severe fall down a flight of stairs. According to her complaint, the fall was a direct result of her intoxication, which was "caused by this over-service of alcohol." Sanders, a neonatal intensive care nurse from Vacaville, California, sustained serious injuries including a concussion, headaches, a possible traumatic brain injury, back injuries, tailbone injuries, and bruising.Why Did the Jury Side with the Passenger? The central legal question was whether Carnival's crew had a duty to stop serving alcohol to a visibly intoxicated passenger. Sanders's legal team argued that Carnival's crew had a responsibility "to supervise and/or assist passengers aboard the vessel who Carnival knew, or should have known, were engaging, or were likely to engage in behavior potentially dangerous to themselves or others." The jury agreed, finding Carnival 60% at fault for the injuries. Sanders was assigned 40% of the responsibility. Despite that shared fault, the jury still awarded $300,000, which was $50,000 more than her attorneys had asked for at trial. The trial lasted one week in Miami federal court before a six-person jury.How Did Carnival Defend the Case? Carnival fought the lawsuit aggressively, seeking dismissal multiple times before trial. The cruise line argued that Sanders "fails to identify any crew member who over-served her or which bar she consumed alcohol at," making it impossible to pinpoint a negligent employee. Carnival also argued that Sanders "does not sufficiently allege that any crew member knew or should have known that Plaintiff was intoxicated," pointing to the absence of allegations that she was "stumbling, sleeping at a bar, slurring her words, or exhibiting any other intoxicated-like behaviors." The jury rejected these arguments. A Carnival spokesperson stated after the verdict: "Carnival Corporation respectfully disagrees with the verdict and believes there are grounds for a new trial and appeal, which it will pursue."Who Represented the Plaintiff? Spencer Aronfeld, founder of Aronfeld Trial Lawyers in Coral Gables, Florida, represented Sanders at trial. Aronfeld, who specializes in cruise ship injury cases, noted the rarity of this result. "It's hard to get to trial, period," Aronfeld told the Miami Herald. "I've had many over-service cases that have settled but none that went the full distance." He added that "holding a major cruise line accountable for the over-service of alcohol is an extremely challenging legal argument to make."Why Does This Verdict Matter for Cruise Ship Injury Cases? This case touches on a gap between land-based alcohol liability laws and the rules that apply at sea. On land, most U.S. states enforce dram shop laws that hold bartenders and their employers liable when they serve a visibly intoxicated customer who then injures themselves or others. At sea, federal maritime law applies, and the standard is different. The jury's verdict signals that cruise lines cannot avoid accountability simply because dram shop statutes do not apply on the open ocean. The duty of reasonable care for passenger safety, a bedrock principle of maritime law, still applies when a guest becomes dangerously intoxicated onboard. Alcohol is a significant revenue source for cruise lines. According to the Miami Herald, cruise operators deliberately position "alcohol serving stations in every nook and cranny" to encourage onboard spending. This case is not isolated. In a separate lawsuit, Royal Caribbean was sued after allegedly serving a passenger 33 drinks in under 12 hours. For plaintiff trial attorneys handling cruise injury or over-service cases, this verdict provides a trial-tested framework for arguing that cruise lines bear responsibility for monitoring and limiting alcohol consumption by their passengers. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured, verdicts like this one show what juries are willing to award when the evidence is strong and the attorney is prepared. Find a plaintiff trial lawyer on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up.Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is alcohol overservice liability? Alcohol overservice occurs when a business continues to serve alcoholic beverages to a person who is visibly intoxicated. On land, dram shop laws in most states allow the injured person to sue the establishment. At sea, the legal theory relies on the cruise line's general duty of care under maritime law rather than state-specific dram shop statutes. Q: Can a plaintiff recover damages if they were partially at fault? Under comparative negligence, a plaintiff can still recover damages even if they share some fault for their injuries. In this case, the jury assigned 40% fault to Sanders and 60% to Carnival. The $300,000 award reflects the jury's assessment after accounting for Sanders's share of responsibility. Q: Is Carnival appealing the verdict? Yes. Carnival stated that it "respectfully disagrees with the verdict and believes there are grounds for a new trial and appeal, which it will pursue." The final outcome of this case may change on appeal.

$300,000 Verdict Against Carnival After Crew Over Serves Passenger 14 Shots of Tequila on Cruise Ship

04/09/26 April 9th, 2026 - Texas Premises Liability

$2.8 Million BBQ Sauce Burn Verdict Against Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Now Fuels an Insurance Showdown

A 225th Civil District Court jury in Bexar County, Texas awarded Genesis Monita $2,815,925 in January 2025 after she suffered second-degree burns from a cup of barbecue sauce served at nearly 190 degrees at a Bill Miller Bar-B-Q drive-thru in San Antonio. The jury found the restaurant chain 100% liable and grossly negligent, delivering its verdict in less than two hours. Now, more than a year later, the case has entered a second legal arena: Bill Miller's own insurer is suing to avoid paying a dime of that judgment.Case at a Glance Verdict: $2,815,925 Case Type: Premises Liability / Gross Negligence Court: 225th Civil District Court, Bexar County, Texas Verdict Date: January 17, 2025 Plaintiff: Genesis Monita Defendant: Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Enterprises, LLC Plaintiff Attorney: Lawrence Morales IIWhat Happened at the Bill Miller Drive-Thru? On the morning of May 19, 2023, Genesis Monita, then an 18-year-old San Antonio high school senior, pulled through the Bill Miller Bar-B-Q drive-thru on SW Loop 410 with her sister. She ordered breakfast tacos with barbecue sauce. After receiving her food, she pulled into a nearby parking space to eat. When she reached into the bag and removed the small plastic cup of sauce, it was so hot she immediately dropped it. The sauce spilled onto her right thigh, causing second-degree burns and permanent scarring. Testing and court evidence revealed the sauce had been served at 189 degrees Fahrenheit. Texas food service guidelines cap hot-held sauces at 135 degrees. Bill Miller's own internal policy set a minimum serving temperature of 165 degrees. The sauce that burned Monita was 54 degrees above the state guideline and 24 degrees above what the company itself required. Monita's attorneys also argued the restaurant violated its own policy by serving the sauce in a thin plastic cup rather than a styrofoam container, which contributed to the injury.Why Did the Jury Award $1.89 Million in Punitive Damages? The jury did not treat this as an isolated mistake. Plaintiff attorney Lawrence Morales II told jurors that a similar burn had occurred at the same location approximately two years earlier and that Bill Miller had failed to address the problem. "How many more people need to be burned by the barbecue sauce for Bill Miller to fix it?" Morales said during trial, according to local news coverage. After closing arguments, the jury of six men and six women deliberated for less than two hours before returning a verdict finding Bill Miller 100% at fault. The damages broke down as follows: $925,925 in actual damages, covering medical expenses, past and future physical pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment $1,890,000 in punitive damages, based on a finding of gross negligence The punitive damages figure reflects the jury's view that Bill Miller's conduct went beyond carelessness. Under Texas law, punitive damages require a finding that the defendant acted with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. "We feel very pleased by the results of this case," Morales said following the verdict. "Genesis just wanted justice." Bill Miller Bar-B-Q's defense argued that Monita was aware the sauce was always served hot and that her own actions caused the spill. The jury rejected that argument entirely.Now the Insurer Is Fighting the Bill Winning a verdict is one thing. Collecting it is another. On April 7, 2026, Mt. Hawley Insurance Company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a court declaration that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify Bill Miller Bar-B-Q for the Monita judgment. The case is Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02826. Mt. Hawley's argument centers on a self-insured retention endorsement in the commercial general liability policy it issued to Bill Miller. That endorsement required Bill Miller to handle and fund claims up to $1,000,000 per occurrence before the insurer's coverage kicked in. It also required Bill Miller to provide immediate written notice to Mt. Hawley when certain triggers were met, including any lawsuit involving serious burns, any suit seeking punitive damages, and any claim exceeding 50% of the retention amount. The Monita case triggered all three. According to Mt. Hawley's filing, Bill Miller did not notify the insurer of the incident, the original petition, or the amended petition adding punitive damages until on or about January 21, 2025, after the jury had already returned its verdict. That gap stretches more than a year from the date the lawsuit was filed. Mt. Hawley disclaimed coverage by letter on March 26, 2025, before filing the federal action. The insurer raises two separate grounds for denying coverage. First, it contends that Bill Miller's failure to provide timely notice breached an express condition of the policy and that Mt. Hawley was prejudiced because it had no opportunity to investigate, participate in defense strategy, or pursue settlement before liability was determined. Second, Mt. Hawley argues that the $1,890,000 punitive damages award is not insurable as a matter of New York law, which governs the policy under a choice-of-law provision. No court ruling has been issued, and Bill Miller has not yet presented its position.What This Case Signals for Plaintiff Attorneys The Bill Miller verdict illustrates two realities plaintiff lawyers know well. First, juries respond to evidence of prior knowledge. When a defendant can be shown to have been aware of a recurring hazard and failed to correct it, punitive damages become a real possibility. The speed of the jury's deliberations here reflects how clearly the evidence landed. Second, a verdict is the beginning of the collection fight, not the end. The Mt. Hawley coverage dispute is a reminder that large judgments against commercial defendants often trigger insurer challenges, particularly when notice obligations under self-insured retention policies were missed. Plaintiff attorneys pursuing similar food service or premises cases should anticipate this dynamic from the outset and factor commercial insurance structures into their case strategy early. Verdicts like this one deserve to be seen. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys can publicly display their trial results and settlements, for free. Create your profile today and let your record speak for itself. Or if you've been seriously injured by a restaurant's negligence, find plaintiff personal injury lawyers in Texas with a proven trial record.FAQ Q: What are punitive damages, and why were they awarded here? A: Punitive damages are awarded on top of compensatory damages when a jury finds that a defendant's conduct was especially reckless or malicious. In Texas, a gross negligence finding is required. Here, the jury concluded that Bill Miller's conscious disregard for customer safety, including serving sauce far above safe temperatures and ignoring a prior burn incident, justified the additional $1,890,000 award. Q: What is a self-insured retention, and how does it differ from a deductible? A: A self-insured retention (SIR) requires the policyholder to pay and manage all costs up to a set dollar threshold before the insurer has any obligation. Unlike a deductible, an SIR also typically requires the policyholder to handle defense duties within that layer. If the policyholder fails to meet notice or cooperation requirements attached to the SIR, the insurer may argue its coverage obligations never attached. Q: Can an insurer refuse to pay a verdict because its policyholder failed to give timely notice? A: In many states, yes. Late notice can void coverage entirely if the insurer can show it was prejudiced by the delay, or if the policy contains strict notice conditions. The Mt. Hawley case will turn on whether Bill Miller's failure to report before trial triggers that consequence under New York federal court applying the applicable policy terms. Mt. Hawley has also raised a separate argument that punitive damages are not insurable under New York law, which could eliminate $1.89 million of the judgment from coverage entirely regardless of the notice issue.

$2.8 Million BBQ Sauce Burn Verdict Against Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Now Fuels an Insurance Showdown

04/05/26 April 5th, 2026 - Florida Premises Liability

$67.25 Million Florida Verdict After Teen Paralyzed at Okeechobee Mud Event

A Martin County jury has awarded $67,250,000 to a Wellington teenager who suffered a catastrophic spinal cord injury after jumping into an unmarked mudhole at a 2023 off-road mud event in Okeechobee County. The verdict, reached March 26, 2026, holds the property owner and event promoter accountable for failing to warn attendees of a concealed and dangerous condition on the premises.Case at a Glance Verdict: $67,250,000 Case Type: Premises Liability / Spinal Cord Injury Court: Martin County, Florida Verdict Date: March 26, 2026 Plaintiff: Justin Nesselhauf, Wellington, FL Defendants: Charles Edward and Cynthia Underhill; C&C Underhill; TGW Productions (Trucks Gone Wild) Plaintiff Attorneys: Michael Pike, Daniel Lustig, Robert Johnson - Pike & Lustig, LLPWhat Happened at Plant Bamboo Off-Road Park On February 18, 2023, Justin Nesselhauf was attending the "Muddy Valentine" event at Plant Bamboo Off-Road Park, a 600-acre working cattle ranch at 695 SW Martin Highway in Okeechobee. The annual event, produced by Trucks Gone Wild, draws thousands of off-road enthusiasts for several days of mud activities, trail riding, and open water areas. Nesselhauf had turned 18 just days before the incident. He jumped into a water and mudhole in an area where swimming and diving were permitted by event organizers. According to the lawsuit, no warning signs had been posted. The mudhole concealed a hidden danger beneath the surface. The impact shattered his cervical spine. Nesselhauf sustained fractures to his C3, C4, and C5 vertebrae and required emergency surgery. Friends pulled him from the water and performed CPR while waiting for Martin County Rescue to arrive. He was airlifted to St. Mary's Hospital. He was left with significant and permanent physical limitations.Why Did the Jury Side with the Plaintiff? The jury found the defendants negligent in the inspection, maintenance, and operation of the premises. Central to the plaintiff's case was the allegation that the unsafe condition of the mudhole area had existed long enough that the property owner and event promoter knew or should have known about it, yet took no action to warn attendees. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants "created the illusion that dangerous conditions are safe", a strong point plaintiff attorney Daniel Lustig pressed pointedly after the verdict. "This verdict sends a clear message: you don't get to cut corners on safety, create the illusion that dangerous conditions are safe, and then shift the blame when someone's life is shattered," Lustig said. "Accountability won at the Martin County Courthouse." Expert testimony from Dr. Craig Lichtblau helped establish the scope of Nesselhauf's long-term medical needs and the associated lifetime costs, a critical component in justifying the size of the award.Who Represented Justin Nesselhauf? The case was handled by Pike & Lustig, LLP, a South Florida boutique firm. Managing Partner Michael Pike, Partner Daniel Lustig, and Partner Robert Johnson tried the case together over years of hard-fought litigation. For Pike, the result was historic. He called it the largest verdict of his 25-year litigation career. "After years of hard-fought litigation, this verdict is the product of a unified team effort," Pike said. Johnson emphasized what the award means practically for his client: "No verdict can restore what was taken from our client, but this result ensures he has the resources he needs for lifelong care, dignity, and independence. We're grateful the jury carefully considered the evidence and delivered justice for him and his family."What This Verdict Means for Recreational Event Venues Florida attracts millions of visitors annually to off-road parks, mud events, and outdoor recreation venues. Operators of these events, whether property owners, promoters, or production companies, carry a legal duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions for attendees and to warn of known hazards. This case makes clear that the duty to warn does not disappear because an activity is inherently physical or the venue is rustic. A mudhole in a swimming-permitted area without warning signage is not an accepted risk, it is a documented failure. For plaintiff attorneys tracking premises liability verdicts in Florida, this outcome demonstrates that juries will hold event promoters and property owners jointly accountable when the evidence shows both knew of dangerous conditions and did nothing. If you or a family member suffered a serious injury at an off-road event, outdoor festival, or recreational venue, verdicts like this one show what juries are willing to award when the evidence is strong and the attorneys are prepared. Find a plaintiff attorney on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up. Plaintiff attorneys with results worth showcasing, create your free profile on Major Verdict and let your record speak for itself.FAQ Q: What is premises liability and how does it apply to an off-road event? A: Premises liability is a legal theory that holds property owners and operators responsible for injuries caused by unsafe conditions on their property. In Florida, this duty extends to event venues and temporary recreational operations. When an operator permits swimming or diving in an area and fails to post warnings about hidden hazards, they can be held liable if someone is injured as a result. Q: What does a C3–C5 spinal cord injury mean for a young person's life? A: Fractures to the C3, C4, and C5 vertebrae, located in the upper cervical spine, can result in partial or complete paralysis, loss of motor function, and reduced ability to breathe independently. The effects are often permanent, requiring lifelong medical care, rehabilitation, and assistive technology. This is why long-term cost testimony from medical experts like Dr. Craig Lichtblau plays such a central role in catastrophic injury trials. Q: Can multiple defendants be held liable in a premises liability case? A: Yes. In Florida, a jury can apportion fault among multiple parties. Here, both the property owner (C&C Underhill) and the event promoter (Trucks Gone Wild) were named defendants. When a property is leased or licensed to an event operator, both the owner and the operator can face liability if their combined failures contributed to an unsafe condition.

$67.25 Million Florida Verdict After Teen Paralyzed at Okeechobee Mud Event

03/28/26 March 28th, 2026 - California Premises Liability

$1.4 Million Verdict After Lawn Mower Launches Golf Ball Into Man's Eye at Long Beach Course

A Los Angeles County jury awarded $1.4 million to a Long Beach man after a lawn mower at a city golf course flung a golf ball through a café window, sending glass shards into his left eye and leaving him with permanent nerve damage. The verdict, returned on March 19, 2026, came after American Golf Corporation admitted liability before trial, leaving the jury to determine damages alone. The case centered on a piece of maintenance equipment that lacked basic safety features and a corporation that knew it.What Happened at Heartwell Golf Course On June 14, 2024, Thomas Graham, a man in his mid-50s, was at Heartwell Golf Course in Long Beach with his son. While ordering food at the course's on-site café, a lawn mower operating nearby struck a golf ball that had been left in the grass. The ball was launched at an estimated 200 miles per hour, according to the firm that represented Graham. The ball shattered the café window. Glass shards struck the left side of Graham's face, and one small fragment entered his left eye. According to the lawsuit, filed in October 2024, the mowing equipment lacked deflectors and other basic safety features that would have prevented the ball from being projected toward the café area. American Golf Corporation, which operates Heartwell Golf Course along with more than 40 public and private courses across the country, admitted liability prior to trial on that basis.The Injury and Its Lasting Impact The glass fragment caused permanent damage to the cornea and nerves in Graham's left eye. According to attorneys at Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP, who represented Graham at trial, his symptoms include a persistent foreign body sensation, daily discomfort, chronic redness, and severe headaches that at times escalate into migraines. Those symptoms have continued from the date of the incident and are expected to persist indefinitely. Graham has worked for the Orange County Sheriff's Department for more than two decades and continues to serve as a commander despite his injuries. Before the accident, coworkers described him as a people person and a strong mentor. His attorney, Jon Davidi, said the constant pain began to change his personality. Graham continues to see ophthalmologists exploring potential treatment, though there is no guarantee he will ever be pain-free. Davidi said his client is trying to remain hopeful that symptoms will slowly improve over time.Admitted Liability, Damages-Only Trial Because American Golf Corporation admitted fault before trial, the jury's sole task was to determine what Graham's injuries were worth. The 12-person jury awarded $1.4 million for pain and mental suffering. Davidi described the award as wholly appropriate, saying it recognized what was taken from Graham. Attorneys for American Golf Corporation did not respond to press requests for comment. Brigitta Cymerint, another member of Graham's trial team at Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP, noted that injuries not visible from the outside can carry profound and permanent consequences for a person's daily life. Co-counsel Dan Dunbar also represented Graham at trial alongside Davidi and Cymerint.What This Verdict Signals for Premises Liability Attorneys Cases involving admitted liability put the entire focus on damages presentation, and this verdict illustrates how effectively a well-documented injury narrative can hold up in that context. Graham's case combined objective medical evidence of permanent nerve damage with detailed testimony about its impact on his work performance, personality, and quality of life. For plaintiff attorneys handling premises liability cases against large corporate operators, this outcome is a useful reference point: a mid-range damages award for a single-eye injury with chronic but non-blinding effects, against a defendant that had already conceded fault. Attorneys who handle verdicts like this one can document and showcase their results on Major Verdict, a free platform built for plaintiff personal injury lawyers. Join Major Verdict to create your public profile and add your trial record. If you are researching personal injury verdicts in California or looking for an attorney with documented trial results, browse attorney profiles on Major Verdict to find lawyers who show their work.

$1.4 Million Verdict After Lawn Mower Launches Golf Ball Into Man's Eye at Long Beach Course

03/13/26 March 13th, 2026 - Florida Premises Liability

$644 Million Florida Premises Liability Verdict After Man Left Paralyzed at Winter Park Bar

An Orange County jury delivered one of the largest premises liability verdicts in Florida history this week, awarding $644,751,855.08 to a man who fell down a dangerous staircase at a Winter Park bar in 2017 and was left partially quadriplegic. The verdict, returned against the owners of Park Social, a second-floor bar in Winter Park, sends a forceful message about property owner accountability when unsafe conditions go unaddressed.What Happened at Park Social In November 2017, a 57-year-old man was leaving Park Social, a bar located on the second story of a building constructed in 1926 in Winter Park, Florida. To exit, he had to descend a flight of approximately 20 stairs. He fell. The injuries were catastrophic. According to Morgan & Morgan, the law firm that represented him, the man sustained multiple fractures to his neck and skull. He now has no feeling from the chest down and essentially no movement in his arms, legs, or torso. He also permanently lost his senses of taste and smell. He will never work again.The Staircase: What the Jury Heard At trial, attorneys for the plaintiff focused the jury's attention squarely on the physical conditions of the staircase itself. According to Morgan & Morgan's post-verdict release, the evidence showed the stairs were too narrow, too steep, and lacked grip tape on the treads. The handrails, attorneys argued, were inadequate for a stairway that served as the bar's only exit. The bar was operating inside a building nearly 100 years old at the time of the incident. The condition of the staircase, plaintiff's counsel argued, reflected a deliberate prioritization of convenience over patron safety. Morgan & Morgan attorney Brian McClain, who handled the case out of the firm's Orlando office, spoke to the full scope of what the plaintiff lost: "Our client's injuries altered his life completely and permanently. He didn't just lose his mobility, but also his identity. This was a man that lived for the simple joys of gardening and cooking, passions that were ripped away from him the moment he stepped on those stairs."How the $644 Million Verdict Breaks Down The Orange County jury's award was itemized across four categories: $166 million for past pain and suffering $363 million for future pain and suffering $109.5 million awarded to the plaintiff's wife for loss of consortium and services $6,251,855 for medical expenses and lost earnings The defendants, Soho WP and BE-1 Concept Holdings, which owned and operated Park Social at the time of the incident, bore the full weight of the verdict. The nearly $640 million allocated to pain and suffering, both past and future, reflects what the jury concluded about the permanent, total, and life-altering nature of the plaintiff's condition. Loss of consortium claims, which compensate a spouse for the loss of companionship and partnership, are sometimes treated as secondary in verdict coverage, but the $109.5 million awarded to the plaintiff's wife underscores how thoroughly this injury dismantled an entire family's life.Morgan and Morgan's Personal Connection to the Case Morgan & Morgan founder John Morgan issued a statement after the verdict that went beyond the legal outcome. "My brother, Tim, lived his life as a quadriplegic after a tragic accident, so I have seen firsthand how an injury like this drastically and permanently changes a person's and their family's lives," Morgan said. The statement reflects something that often gets lost in large-verdict coverage: behind every catastrophic injury case is a real person whose life was subdivided into before and after by a single moment.Why This Verdict Matters Beyond Florida Florida premises liability law holds property owners and operators responsible for maintaining reasonably safe conditions for guests and patrons. When a commercial establishment opens its doors to paying customers, particularly in a space that requires navigating a staircase, the duty to maintain safe egress is not optional. This verdict will be studied. A staircase that is too narrow, too steep, and missing basic safety features like grip tape and adequate handrails is not an obscure hazard. It is a documented, preventable condition. The jury's willingness to hold the bar's ownership accountable for the full scope of the plaintiff's lifetime losses, including future pain and suffering projected across decades of paralysis, reflects how seriously Florida juries can treat premises liability failures when the evidence is clear. For plaintiff attorneys tracking verdict trends in premises liability and Florida personal injury cases, this outcome is a significant data point. Major Verdict tracks significant plaintiff verdicts and settlements across all 50 states. Browse the latest results or find a plaintiff attorney with a proven trial record in your state. If you are a plaintiff attorney with trial results worth showcasing, create your free profile on Major Verdict and let your record speak for itself.

$644 Million Florida Premises Liability Verdict After Man Left Paralyzed at Winter Park Bar

02/25/26 February 25th, 2026 - Colorado Premises Liability

$2.7M Federal Jury Verdict Against Target Corp in Colorado Premises Liability Case

A federal jury in Denver awarded $2,698,550 to a customer who tripped over a fallen curbside pickup sign at a Littleton, Colorado Target store a hazard that evidence showed the retail giant knew about for months and failed to fix. The verdict, returned on November 21, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Case No. 1:23-cv-02828-DDD-STV), found Target Corp 100% responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. The judgment became final after Target Corp did not appeal by the February 19, 2026 deadline.What Happened at Target Store #1776 in Littleton The incident occurred on October 9, 2021, at Target Store #1776, located at 9390 W. Cross Drive in Littleton, Colorado. A temporary curbside pickup sign had blown over earlier that day. Evidence presented at trial showed the sign was visually camouflaged against the surrounding pavement which had been painted in Target's own branding colors making it difficult to see underfoot. That design detail mattered. So did what happened after the sign fell.Target Knew the Signs Were a Problem and Did Nothing The jury heard evidence that Target Corp had been aware for months that these curbside pickup signs were falling over prior to this incident. Video evidence presented at trial showed that multiple Target employees walked near the fallen sign before the customer was hurt. Despite those opportunities, no one removed it, marked it, or cordoned off the area. The plaintiff subsequently tripped over the sign and fell. The jury's finding of 100% liability against Target reflects the conclusion that this was not a sudden, unforeseeable accident. The hazard was known. The risk was documented. And nothing was done.Severe and Permanent Injuries The fall caused the plaintiff to suffer severe nerve damage to the right arm and hand. Medical testimony established that the injuries resulted in permanent impairment and chronic pain, with lasting functional limitations affecting daily life. The jury's award of $2,698,550 covers medical expenses, pain and suffering, and the long-term consequences of those permanent injuries.The Legal Team The plaintiff was represented by Vernon L. Ready of Ready Law, a Colorado personal injury firm based in Denver. The verdict places this case among the more significant premises liability outcomes in the Denver metropolitan area in recent years, according to the press release issued by Ready Law.What This Verdict Means for Retail Premises Liability Cases This case carries meaningful signals for plaintiff attorneys handling retail injury claims in Colorado. The combination of documented prior notice, identifiable corporate branding contributing to the hazard, and video evidence of employees passing the danger point created a strong liability picture. The jury's 100% fault allocation against a major national retailer in federal court underscores that corporations cannot escape responsibility for known, unaddressed hazards simply because the setting is a routine retail environment. For attorneys tracking premises liability verdicts in Colorado, cases like this one illustrate what a well-developed "notice plus failure to act" theory can produce at trial. Plaintiff attorneys can explore Colorado verdict data and connect with experienced trial lawyers at Major Verdict.Find a Colorado Personal Injury Lawyer If you or someone you know has been injured on another person's or business's property in Colorado, you have the right to seek compensation. Colorado's Premises Liability Act imposes specific duties on property owners and occupiers to protect lawful visitors from known hazards. This verdict shows what can happen when those duties are ignored. To find a plaintiff personal injury attorney with a proven trial record in Colorado, visit the Major Verdict member directory a public resource connecting injured people with experienced lawyers across all 50 states. You can also explore Colorado personal injury public resources for more context on how cases like this are handled in your state. Attorneys: if you try cases like this and want your results in front of the public and your peers, join Major Verdict the only platform where plaintiff lawyers publicly display detailed trial outcomes.

$2.7M Federal Jury Verdict Against Target Corp in Colorado Premises Liability Case

02/06/26 February 6th, 2026 - New York Premises Liability

$36.4 Million Bronx Verdict After Worker Suffers Traumatic Brain Injury at Foodtown Supermarket

A Bronx County jury has awarded $36,398,000 to a worker who suffered a traumatic brain injury and serious orthopedic injuries after slipping on cooking oil applied to a makeshift ramp inside a Parkchester supermarket. The verdict, returned February 4, 2026 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, is the largest premises-accident personal injury verdict in the Bronx in more than seven years, and the largest personal injury verdict on record in New York State for an individual undocumented immigrant worker. Case at a Glance Verdict: $36,398,000 Case Type: Premises Liability / Traumatic Brain Injury Court: Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County Judge: Hon. Wilma Guzman Verdict Date: February 4, 2026 Case No.: 31210/2017E Plaintiff: Honorio Rosario-Silverio Defendants: PPC Commercial, LLC; 1489 Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown Supermarket (Parkchester, Bronx) Plaintiff Attorneys: Mitchell Proner and Daisy Koch, Proner & Proner (Manhattan)What Happened in the Foodtown Basement On October 14, 2017, Honorio Rosario-Silverio was working at a Foodtown supermarket in the Parkchester section of the Bronx. His employer, a non-party to the lawsuit, had been hired to install a commercial rack refrigeration system in the store's basement. To move the heavy equipment downstairs, workers placed a metal plate over the basement stairway to create a makeshift ramp. According to evidence presented at trial, cooking oil was then applied to the surface of the ramp so the refrigeration components would slide down more easily. The plaintiff contended the oil was supplied at the direction of the supermarket owner to speed up the work. While positioned at the top of the ramp to guide the equipment, Rosario-Silverio slipped. The oil that had coated the ramp had also worked its way onto his shoes. He fell down the incline. At Jacobi Hospital, he was treated and discharged with four stitches to his forearm. It appeared, initially, to be a minor injury. It was not.A "Minor Injury" That Changed Everything Over time, Rosario-Silverio was diagnosed with significant shoulder and cervical spine injuries requiring surgery. He was also diagnosed with a mild traumatic brain injury. The plaintiff's team presented advanced neurological evidence to establish the brain injury objectively. A brain-injury expert testified that DTI MRI imaging and NeuroQuant volumetric analysis, technologies that measure structural changes in brain tissue, confirmed trauma and placed Rosario-Silverio at increased risk for early dementia. A neuroradiologist corroborated those findings. The treating cervical spine and shoulder surgeons each testified that the surgeries performed were caused by the 2017 fall, not a separate accident in 2020 that the defense attempted to use to shift blame. The jury's damages award reflected the full scope of the injury: $5,000,000 - past pain and suffering $20,000,000 - future pain and suffering $10,000,000 - future medical expenses $468,000 - past lost earnings $930,000 - future lost earningsHow the Defense Fought and Why the Jury Disagreed The defense contested nearly every element of the case. On liability, they argued the supermarket owner was not present during the work and that all means and methods were controlled solely by Rosario-Silverio's employer. They also claimed he chose to walk up the ramp rather than use the adjacent staircase, making his own fall the product of his own decision. On damages, the defense presented a neurologist and neuroradiologist who testified that Rosario-Silverio had sustained no brain or neck injury and was capable of returning to work. They pointed to a 2020 accident as the true source of his orthopedic complaints and argued the plaintiff was seeking double recovery. Throughout the trial, the defense also attacked Rosario-Silverio's credibility directly, emphasizing that he was undocumented, paid off the books, and had not fully reported his earnings for tax purposes. The jury rejected those arguments in full. "This verdict reflects the jury's recognition that serious brain and orthopedic injuries are real and life-altering, even when defendants try to dismiss them as minor, unrelated, or the product of a later incident," said Mitchell Proner, trial counsel for the plaintiff. "The defense highlighted his immigration status, his off-the-books earnings, and a subsequent accident, but the evidence showed that what happened in that supermarket basement permanently changed Mr. Rosario-Silverio's life."Why This Verdict Matters This result is significant on two levels. First, the medical evidence strategy. The plaintiff's team used DTI MRI imaging and NeuroQuant analysis, tools not yet routine in courtrooms, to make an invisible injury visible to a jury. When the initial ER records showed only a forearm laceration, the defense had a compelling narrative. Plaintiff counsel dismantled it with objective imaging that the defense's own experts could not credibly refute. Second, the plaintiff's background. Defendants repeatedly raised Rosario-Silverio's undocumented status and off-the-books employment as reasons to discount his claims. The Bronx jury declined to do so. The result sets a clear record: immigration status does not diminish the value of a human life or the accountability of a property owner under New York premises liability law. For plaintiff attorneys handling traumatic brain injury or premises liability cases in New York, this verdict is a study in how to overcome a defense built on credibility attacks, competing causation theories, and a thin initial injury record. Major Verdict is the only platform where plaintiff attorneys publicly document their trial results and settlements, building a searchable record of what juries actually award. Browse the latest verdict news or find a plaintiff attorney in New York with the trial record to back it up. Plaintiff attorneys with results worth showcasing, create your free profile on Major Verdict and let your record speak for itself.FAQ Q: What is a mild traumatic brain injury and how do attorneys prove it in court? A: A mild traumatic brain injury, or mild TBI, refers to a brain injury that may not appear on standard imaging like a CT scan or conventional MRI but causes real, lasting neurological changes. In court, plaintiff attorneys increasingly rely on advanced imaging tools such as DTI MRI, which maps the structural integrity of white matter tracts in the brain, and NeuroQuant volumetric analysis, which compares brain structure against age-matched norms. In this case, those tools provided objective evidence of brain damage that overcame the defense's claim that Rosario-Silverio had sustained no neurological injury. Q: Can an undocumented worker sue for personal injury in New York? A: Yes. Under New York law, immigration status does not bar a person from bringing a personal injury claim or recovering damages. Undocumented workers are entitled to the same premises liability protections as any other person injured on someone else's property. Lost earnings claims can be more complex, but juries are not permitted to reduce awards based on a plaintiff's immigration status alone. This verdict reinforces that principle at a historic scale. Q: What is premises liability and when does it apply to a workplace accident? A: Premises liability holds property owners responsible for maintaining safe conditions on their property for people who are lawfully present. Even when a worker is employed by a contractor rather than the property owner, the owner can be held liable if an unsafe condition on the property, such as an oil-coated makeshift ramp, caused the injury. In this case, the jury found PPC Commercial and Foodtown Supermarket liable despite their argument that the plaintiff's employer controlled all means and methods of the work.

$36.4 Million Bronx Verdict After Worker Suffers Traumatic Brain Injury at Foodtown Supermarket

08/04/25 August 4th, 2025 - California Premises Liability

LA Jury Returns $3 Million to Man Over Broken Sidewalk in City's Latest Liability Payout

A jury returned $3,000,000 in a civil injury case. The trial date reported was August 13, 2025. LA panel grants $3 million to man over broken sidewalk in city’s latest liability payout - A panel has granted a wedding photographer $3 million after he was injured when he tripped over a damaged sidewalk in Woodland Hills in 2019. Last week, a panel made Payman Heravi $3 million richer. While Heravi started to cry as the panel’s decision was read, they didn’t appear to be tears of joy. Payman says his left arm isn’t fully functional - all because of a severely uneven L.A. city sidewalk. Right now, (the) pain is a lot, Heravi said. Right now, I can’t use my shoulder. In December 2019, Heravi says he was walking down Ventura Boulevard in Woodland Hills and as he checked a text on his phone, he tripped on a several-inch uplift in the sidewalk. Heravi’s attorneys successfully argued that city employees saw the sidewalk was damaged, but didn’t repair it. That should be fixed in a reasonable manner, Heravi’s personal inpanel attorney Max Lee said. If that happened in this case, Mr. Heravi would still be able to do what he loves and not be in constant pain every day. Three surgeries and years of physical therapy later, Heravi says he still cannot return to making a living as a wedding photographer. The panel granted Heravi a total of $3,028,026. As for the sidewalk, it still has not been fixed. In roughly the past five years, the city of Los Angeles has paid out more than $86 million because of lawsuits relating to broken and uneven sidewalks.

LA Jury Returns $3 Million to Man Over Broken Sidewalk in City's Latest Liability Payout

1 of 1 Pages - 8 Total Verdict News Posts Found

Search Verdict News

State Verdict News

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Verdict Case Types

Member Search

Latest Featured Members

View All Major Verdict Members

Search Members by State

Plaintiff trial attorneys. Join now for free!

ShowcaseYour Experience

Major Verdict gives you a free public profile to showcase your hard-earned trial verdicts and notable settlements. Let your results speak for themselves to potential clients and peers nationwide. You control what you share, when you edit, and how your public record is presented.

Why join

Join now