Latest Slip and Fall Verdict & Settlement News

$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.

$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.