Latest Slip and Fall Verdict & Settlement News

Browse all verdict news articles related to slip and fall cases.

04/16/26 April 16th, 2026 - Nevada Slip and Fall

$3.4 Million Slip-and-Fall Verdict Against Paris Las Vegas Casino After Jury Finds Shared Fault

A Clark County, Nevada jury awarded approximately $3.4 million to Jesse Lozano in a slip-and-fall case against the Paris Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas after a 10-day trial in March 2026. Lozano alleged he slipped on a spilled drink on the casino's wet marble floor in 2018, suffering severe back and cervical injuries that required surgery. The jury also assigned Lozano 50% comparative fault, reducing his collectible damages to roughly $1.7 million. The case was tried before Judge Danielle Pieper in Nevada's Eighth Judicial District Court.Case at a Glance Verdict: $3,400,000 Collectible Amount: $1,700,000 (after 50% comparative negligence reduction) Case Type: Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Case Number: A-20-823179-C Court: Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada Judge: Danielle Pieper Trial Length: 10 days (March 2026) Plaintiff: Jesse Lozano Defendant: Paris Hotel and Casino Plaintiff Attorney: Ramzy Ladah, Ladah Injury & Car Accident Lawyers Defense Attorney: Brandon Lew, Brandon Smerber Law Firm Amount Sought: $7.8 millionWhat Happened at the Paris Las Vegas Casino? In 2018, Jesse Lozano, then 60 years old, was walking through the main thoroughfare of the Paris Hotel and Casino with his family after attending a show. According to trial testimony, Lozano slipped on a spilled drink on the casino's marble floor. The fall caused serious injuries, including damage to his cervical spine. Lozano required extensive medical treatment including injections, spinal implants, and surgery. His medical expenses exceeded $2 million.Why Did the Jury Side with the Plaintiff? Lozano's attorney, Ramzy Ladah of Ladah Injury & Car Accident Lawyers, argued that the Paris Las Vegas failed to maintain safe conditions for its guests. A central point in the plaintiff's case was the casino's alleged lack of a proper maintenance schedule for its floors, particularly in high-traffic areas with marble surfaces. Ladah initially sought $7.8 million in damages to account for Lozano's medical expenses, pain and suffering, and the lasting impact of his injuries.How Did the Defense Respond? Defense attorney Brandon Lew of Brandon Smerber Law Firm challenged the plaintiff's version of events. The defense argued there was insufficient evidence to prove what Lozano actually slipped on. In a notable trial tactic, the defense suggested the liquid on the floor may have come from Lozano's own beer or a pocket flask. Despite this argument, the jury ultimately found in favor of the plaintiff, though it assigned significant shared responsibility.What Does 50% Comparative Negligence Mean for This Nevada Casino Slip-and-Fall Verdict? While the jury awarded approximately $3.4 million, it also found Lozano 50% at fault for his injuries. Under Nevada's comparative negligence law, a plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of fault. As long as the plaintiff is not more than 50% at fault, they can still recover damages. In this case, Lozano's 50% share of fault cut his collectible damages roughly in half, bringing the actual recovery to approximately $1.7 million. The finding highlights how comparative negligence can shape the final outcome of a personal injury verdict, even when the jury agrees the defendant bears substantial responsibility.What This Verdict Means A $3.4 million verdict against one of the Las Vegas Strip's most recognizable casino properties highlights the real consequences of premises liability failures, even when the jury assigns shared fault. For the plaintiff, a 50% comparative negligence finding still resulted in a substantial recovery of approximately $1.7 million. 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. You can also browse the latest verdict news or find a plaintiff attorney in Nevada.Frequently Asked Questions Q: Can you still win a slip-and-fall case if you are partially at fault? A: Yes. In Nevada and many other states, comparative negligence allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they share some responsibility for the accident. The key threshold in Nevada is that the plaintiff's fault must not exceed 50%. The damages are reduced proportionally based on the plaintiff's share of fault. Q: What does a casino owe its guests in terms of floor safety? A: Casinos and other commercial properties have a legal duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions for visitors. This includes regular inspection and cleaning of floors, especially in high-traffic areas. When a property owner fails to address a known hazard or lacks a proper maintenance routine, they may be found liable for resulting injuries. Q: How are medical expenses handled in slip-and-fall verdicts? A: Medical expenses are a major component of damages in slip-and-fall cases. Juries consider past medical bills, future treatment costs, and related expenses like rehabilitation. In the Lozano case, medical expenses alone exceeded $2 million, reflecting the severity of spinal injuries that required surgery and implants. For more on how Nevada handles personal injury cases, see our Nevada personal injury resources.

Inside of casino showing a bunch of slot machines

$3.4 Million Slip-and-Fall Verdict Against Paris Las Vegas Casino After Jury Finds Shared Fault

04/13/26 April 13th, 2026 - Connecticut Slip and Fall

$2.58M Verdict in Connecticut Parking Garage Slip-and-Fall Case

A Connecticut jury returned a verdict of $2,582,952.89 in a premises liability case arising from a slip-and-fall incident in a parking garage, finding the defendants 99% at fault after just two hours of deliberation. Attorney Cassandra Hardy of The Flood Law Firm LLC in Middletown, Connecticut, represented the plaintiff and secured the award in April 2026.Case at a Glance Verdict: $2,582,952.89 Case Type: Premises Liability (Slip-and-Fall) Location: Middletown, Connecticut Verdict Date: April 2026 Defendant: Parking garage property owner(s) (not identified in court records) Plaintiff Attorney: Cassandra Hardy, The Flood Law Firm LLC Economic Damages: $309,043.32 Non-Economic Damages: $2,273,909.57What Happened in This Case? The plaintiff suffered a fractured humerus in a slip-and-fall at a parking garage. The injury required surgical intervention and may necessitate a future joint replacement, according to The Flood Law Firm. The defendants' insurer made a final pre-trial settlement offer of $90,000. The Flood Law Firm rejected it and took the case to trial. The jury's $2,582,952.89 verdict represents nearly 29 times the defendant's last offer. How Did the Jury Rule on Fault? The jury assigned 99% of the fault to the defendants, a finding that reflects the strength of the evidence presented at trial. In Connecticut, a plaintiff found partially at fault can still recover damages reduced by their share of responsibility. A 1% allocation to the plaintiff in this case had minimal impact on the final award. The verdict came after only two hours of deliberation, a timeline that signals the jury found the liability case clear-cut.What Did the Jury Award? The total award of $2,582,952.89 broke down into two components: Economic damages: $309,043.32 - covering medical expenses, future medical costs, and other out-of-pocket losses Non-economic damages: $2,273,909.57 - reflecting the pain, suffering, and lasting reduction in quality of life the plaintiff experienced as a result of the injury The non-economic portion of the award accounts for more than 88% of the total verdict, underscoring how significantly the fractured humerus and its consequences affected the plaintiff's daily life. Who Represented the Plaintiff? Attorney Cassandra Hardy led the trial for The Flood Law Firm LLC. Hardy joined the firm in 2025 after spending several years as defense counsel for insurance companies, experience that gives her direct insight into how insurers build and evaluate cases. Hardy earned her law degree from Quinnipiac University School of Law, graduating summa cum laude. She is admitted to practice in Connecticut and the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, and is a member of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association and the American Association for Justice. "This verdict represents not only justice for our client but also accountability for negligent property owners," a firm spokesperson said.Why This Verdict Matters for Property Owners and Injury Victims Parking garages present a specific category of premises liability risk. Property owners and managers have a legal duty to maintain safe conditions for visitors. When they fail, Connecticut juries have shown a willingness to hold them fully accountable. This case also illustrates a pattern seen across high-value premises liability verdicts: insurers routinely make low initial offers, banking on plaintiffs accepting less than their case is worth. Here, the gap between the $90,000 pre-trial offer and the $2,582,952.89 verdict was nearly $2.5 million. For attorneys handling similar cases in Connecticut, the damages breakdown and the jury's swift fault determination make this verdict a useful data point when evaluating comparable claims. To see more plaintiff trial results from Connecticut, visit the Connecticut personal injury public resources on Major Verdict.Find a Plaintiff Attorney With a Trial Record to Match Verdicts like this one show what juries are willing to award when the evidence is strong and the attorney is prepared. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured in a slip-and-fall or other premises liability incident, find a Connecticut plaintiff lawyer on Major Verdict who has the trial record to back it up. Are you a plaintiff attorney with verdicts or settlements worth showcasing? Join Major Verdict and put your results in front of the clients and colleagues who are looking for them.FAQ Q: What is the difference between economic and non-economic damages in a Connecticut premises liability case? A: Economic damages cover measurable financial losses such as medical bills, future treatment costs, and lost wages. Non-economic damages compensate for pain, suffering, and the overall impact the injury has on the plaintiff's life. Connecticut does not cap non-economic damages in most personal injury cases, which allows juries to award amounts that reflect the true severity of the harm. Q: What does a 99% fault finding mean for the plaintiff's recovery? A: Under Connecticut's modified comparative negligence law, a plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of fault. If a plaintiff is found 1% at fault, they recover 99% of the total verdict. A plaintiff assigned 51% or more of the fault cannot recover at all. In this case, the 99% fault finding against the defendants meant the plaintiff's recovery was reduced by only 1%. Q: How are future medical costs handled in a premises liability verdict? A: Future medical expenses are typically included in the economic damages portion of a verdict when the evidence supports anticipated ongoing treatment. In this case, the plaintiff faces a possible future joint replacement, a cost that may have factored into the jury's economic damages calculation of $309,043.32.

$2.58M Verdict in Connecticut Parking Garage Slip-and-Fall Case

03/27/26 March 27th, 2026 - New Mexico Slip and Fall

$266K Verdict in Santa Fe Slip and Fall Finds City Partially Liable

A Santa Fe County jury awarded Kathy Baca approximately $266,000 after finding the City of Santa Fe partially responsible for injuries she sustained in a fall near the Palace of the Governors. The verdict, returned following a three-day jury trial, centered on a damaged pedestrian safety mat that had come loose from the sidewalk at one of the most heavily trafficked intersections in downtown Santa Fe. The case drew attention not just for the outcome, but for what it revealed about how the city maintained infrastructure designed specifically to protect people with disabilities.What Happened on the Plaza Baca, then 54 years old and visiting from Orange County, California, was in Santa Fe in 2021 to attend her brother-in-law's funeral. While strolling around the Plaza with her husband, she tripped over a "detectable warning surface" mat located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Palace and Washington avenues. These mats, recognizable by their raised-bump texture, are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act at locations where sidewalks meet curbs. They alert pedestrians with vision disabilities that they are approaching traffic. According to Baca's lawsuit, the mat at this location had never been inset into the sidewalk as proper construction standards require, and at the time of her fall it was detached from the surface entirely, with a vertical gap where it had come loose. Baca broke her elbow in the fall.The Jury's Findings The jury found the city negligent and calculated Baca's total damages at $750,000. However, applying New Mexico's comparative fault rules, the jury apportioned responsibility between the parties: 35% to the city, and 65% to Baca. Under that apportionment, her recoverable award came to approximately $266,000. Plaintiff's attorney Todd Wertheim said in a statement that the mat violated both ADA and New Mexico Department of Transportation safety standards that were known to the city. He said the city had failed to maintain the surface correctly for years. The city had attempted to settle the case before trial, according to city spokesperson Peter Olson, but the parties were too far apart on value to reach an agreement.Comparative Fault and What It Means New Mexico follows a pure comparative fault system, meaning a plaintiff's recovery is reduced proportionally by their own percentage of fault. In this case, the jury's finding that Baca was 65% responsible reduced a $750,000 damages award to roughly $266,000. Comparative fault determinations in premises liability cases often turn on what the plaintiff knew or should have known about a hazard, and whether they exercised reasonable care. The jury's split here, while reducing Baca's recovery significantly, still affirmed that the city bore legal responsibility for the condition of the mat. For plaintiff attorneys handling municipal negligence cases, the verdict illustrates both the opportunity and the challenge: gross failures in public infrastructure can support substantial damages findings, but apportionment battles remain a central front in these trials.The Broader Implication Wertheim's statement after the verdict pointed beyond the individual outcome. He noted that detectable warning surfaces are designed to help people with disabilities, but become hazards to everyone when they fall into disrepair. As of the day the verdict was reported, a mark remained on the downtown sidewalk where the mat that caused Baca's fall had once been. A similar mat on the other side of the same intersection, while affixed, was also not inset into the sidewalk. The verdict may prompt the city to reassess how it inspects and maintains these surfaces across its sidewalk network, particularly in high-foot-traffic areas near the Plaza.Track Verdicts Like This One on Major Verdict Cases involving municipal negligence and premises liability produce some of the most fact-intensive jury determinations in personal injury law. The apportionment numbers, damages calculations, and liability theories vary widely by jurisdiction and case type. Major Verdict is a free public platform where plaintiff personal injury attorneys document their trial results and notable settlements. If you are a New Mexico plaintiff attorney with verdicts worth sharing, create your free profile at Major Verdict and add your results to the public record. If you are researching personal injury outcomes in New Mexico or looking for an attorney with a documented trial history, browse our member profiles to find lawyers who show their work.

$266K Verdict in Santa Fe Slip and Fall Finds City Partially Liable

03/23/26 March 23rd, 2026 - Florida Slip and Fall

$3,967,000 Publix Slip and Fall Verdict in Osceola County, Florida

A Florida jury awarded nearly $4 million to a 30-year-old mother of three after she slipped on liquid in a Publix Super Markets beverage aisle, with the jury finding the grocery chain 100% responsible for the injuries that followed. The verdict, returned in Osceola County following a six-day trial, came after Publix's last settlement offer stood at just $600,000.What Happened in the Publix Store On June 5, 2023, Victoria Marcano slipped on liquid in the beverage aisle of a Publix location. Evidence presented at trial showed that Publix employees had already cleaned liquid from the same area before her fall, a fact that proved significant in the jury's assessment of the grocer's responsibility. The case was filed in Osceola County as Victoria Marcano v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., Case No. 2024-CA-001128.Three Surgeries and a Long Road Ahead The injuries Marcano sustained were serious. She underwent three spinal surgeries: one on her neck and two on her back, with additional surgeries anticipated. Marcano was 30 years old and raising three children at the time of the incident. Her attorneys presented evidence of the long-term impact the injuries had on her life and her ability to care for her family.Publix's Defense and the Jury's Answer Publix denied liability throughout the litigation and argued that Marcano was not injured as a result of the fall. The defense went further, attempting to attribute her spinal injuries to complaints related to carrying her children in the months before the incident. The jury rejected both arguments entirely. Rather than assign partial fault, jurors found Publix 100% responsible and awarded $3,967,000 in damages, more than six times the company's pre-trial settlement offer of $600,000.The Legal Team: Rubenstein Law The plaintiff was represented by Nicholas T. Smith, who served as first-chair trial attorney, alongside trial attorney Dayna Nilsen and senior partner Raul E. Garcia Jr., all of Rubenstein Law. After the verdict, Garcia Jr. commented that the jury listened to the evidence and held Publix accountable. He described Marcano as a young mother raising three children, already through three surgeries with more expected, and said the team was pleased to have secured the outcome she deserved. The legal team noted the verdict underscores the importance of holding property owners to account when hazardous conditions go unaddressed despite known risk.What This Verdict Signals for Premises Liability Cases Slip and fall cases at major retail chains are often met with aggressive defenses and low settlement offers. This result illustrates a few things worth noting: Prior notice matters. The evidence that Publix employees had cleaned the same area before Marcano's fall was central to establishing that the hazard was known, or should have been known, and not corrected. Jury skepticism of "blame the plaintiff" defenses. Attributing a plaintiff's spinal injuries to childcare activities is a common defense tactic. Here, it did not resonate with the jury. Settlement offers can be dramatically low. The gap between Publix's $600,000 offer and the $3,967,000 verdict is a reminder that pre-trial offers don't always reflect a case's full value at trial. Plaintiff attorneys handling premises liability cases in Florida can browse verdicts and connect with attorneys who have taken these cases to trial at Major Verdict.Explore Florida Personal Injury Verdicts If you were injured at a grocery store or retail location in Florida, results like this one reflect what juries are willing to award when negligence is proven. Understanding verdict history in your state can help you evaluate your options. Explore Florida personal injury verdicts and public resources on Major Verdict, or browse attorney profiles to find a plaintiff lawyer with a verified track record at trial. Plaintiff attorneys: Major Verdict is where you display your trial results publicly: verdicts, settlements, and the stories behind them. A free profile takes minutes to set up.

$3,967,000 Publix Slip and Fall Verdict in Osceola County, Florida

1 of 1 Pages - 4 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