Premises Liability

This case arose after a dangerous 60-foot manual sliding gate collapsed on tenant Christopher Huynh behind his business in Stanton, California. The heavy gate pinned him to the ground, causing paralysis, spinal damage, and long-term disability. His wife, Christine Vu, later became his full-time caregiver. The couple alleged the property owners and managers ignored warnings about the unsafe gate, failed to maintain the premises, and instructed Huynh to close it each night. As trial approached, the parties reached a $10.8 million settlement reflecting the permanent injuries, profound loss of mobility, and the life-changing impact on the couple’s future.

A San Francisco woman reached a $128,000 settlement after tripping over exposed metal anchor bolts on a city sidewalk. Plaintiff Jane Gazzola alleged that the City and County of San Francisco and Wilad Properties, LLC failed to maintain the walkway in a safe condition, causing her serious injuries. The Defendants denied liability, arguing the sidewalk was not dangerous and that Gazzola contributed to her fall. The case, filed in 2023, ended in April 2025 when all parties notified the Court of a full settlement, avoiding the uncertainties of a jury trial.

Alyonik Hrushow’s personal injury lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco ended in a $225,000 settlement in May 2025, months before the case was set for trial. Hrushow claimed she suffered severe injuries after encountering a dangerous condition on public property that the City allegedly failed to repair or properly warn about. Her complaint asserted negligence under California’s public-property laws, arguing that the City created or ignored a hazardous defect that posed a foreseeable risk. The City denied all allegations, insisting that Hrushow caused or contributed to her own injuries and asserting multiple Government Code immunities. As discovery progressed, both sides agreed to resolve the matter, allowing Hrushow to receive immediate compensation for medical expenses, pain, and suffering while the City avoided the risks and costs of a jury trial.

In a Fresno County courtroom, justice was delivered for a young child injured under daycare supervision. The case, Norman Martin III vs. Charlene Burch and Wee Town Learning Center, centered on claims of negligence and violations of California’s childcare safety standards. The jury determined that both the daycare and employee Charlene Burch failed to provide proper supervision, directly causing the child’s injuries. After hearing extensive testimony, the jury awarded $970,874.79 in total damages covering medical expenses, future care, and significant compensation for pain, suffering, and emotional distress. This verdict underscores California juries’ increasing scrutiny of childcare providers and their adherence to statutory safety requirements meant to protect vulnerable children in their care.

In a Broward County courtroom, a routine slip-and-fall case turned into a lesson in shared responsibility. Algene Edwards sued Westgate Plaza, Inc. for negligence after tripping on a damaged sidewalk in Fort Lauderdale. Edwards alleged the property owner ignored a known hazard, while Westgate argued the danger was obvious and avoidable. The jury agreed both sides shared blame—assigning 75% fault to Edwards and 25% to Westgate Plaza. Though total damages reached $741,276.57, Edwards’s recovery was sharply reduced under Florida’s comparative negligence rule. The verdict underscored the delicate balance between property maintenance and personal caution.

On February 16, 2022, Sherrell Whitfield initiated a premises liability lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Housing Authority. The plaintiff alleged that a dangerous condition on public property, which the municipal defendants controlled and had knowledge of, caused her to sustain significant personal injuries and property damage. The case was filed under Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction, indicating a high financial claim. The City, represented by the City Attorney’s Office, denied all negligence claims, often relying on California’s statutory governmental immunities in its defense. Facing the complexity and expense of a full trial, which would have involved detailed expert testimony, both parties chose to resolve the dispute. On March 12, 2025, the case concluded when the defendants agreed to a settlement, paying Sherrell Whitfield the sum of $100,000 to finalize all claims.

The personal injury case of Cook v. City of San Diego concluded with a $75,000 out-of-court settlement.2 Plaintiff Rakewon Emmanuel Cook alleged that the City’s failure to maintain safe public property, despite having prior knowledge of a hazard, caused him serious injuries and resulting financial losses. The City had consistently denied wrongdoing and raised defenses, including the plaintiff's own negligence, but ultimately agreed to the payout to avoid the expense and uncertainty of a jury trial over the liability claims.

The case of Michelle Champeau v. City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and State of California stemmed from a serious sidewalk fall near 7th Street and New Hampshire Avenue in Los Angeles. Champeau claimed that poorly maintained public property caused her accident and subsequent injuries. After months of legal proceedings, the City of Los Angeles and related Defendants agreed to pay a $365,000 settlement, resolving the personal injury and premises liability claims. The outcome underscored the City’s duty to maintain safe walkways and demonstrated how public entities can be held accountable when negligence contributes to citizen injuries.

On November 4, 2017, Diego Suarez Perez was robbed and shot outside Tony’s Food Market in Miami’s Liberty City neighborhood. Perez sued the store’s owners, Eddy and Sara Casamayor, and their company, 4 Brothers LLC, for failing to provide adequate security despite repeated crimes on the property. The defense denied liability, calling the shooting unforeseeable. After hearing evidence of prior violent incidents and expert testimony on preventable risks, a Miami-Dade jury ruled for Perez. On July 9, 2025, they awarded him $20 million for past and future pain, suffering, disability, and loss of life enjoyment.

A Miami jury ruled in favor of Basma Ettalhy in her lawsuit against MAU Miami, LLC after she slipped and fell at the restaurant. The jury found the restaurant negligent for failing to keep the premises safe and awarded her $234,829 in damages for medical expenses, pain, and suffering.

In Hartford, Connecticut, tenant Jerrod Kerr sued his landlord, Symone Morrison, after slipping on ice at 142-144 Francis Avenue on January 5, 2022. Kerr claimed Morrison failed to maintain the driveway safely, remove ice, or warn tenants of the hazard. He suffered severe leg fractures, hip, and knee pain, alleging permanent injury and future medical expenses. Morrison denied negligence and argued Kerr was partly at fault. On July 30, 2025, the jury found Morrison 60% liable and Kerr 40% liable. They awarded $476,736.69 in total damages, reduced to $286,042.01 after factoring comparative negligence. The verdict highlights landlord duties to maintain safe conditions even in winter weather.

In Los Angeles, a jury on August 18, 2025, reached a split verdict in Ulrike Zillner’s personal injury lawsuit against Maple Street Burbank Homeowners Association and Ross Morgan & Company, Inc. Zillner claimed unsafe property conditions caused her severe injuries and lasting harm. The jury found both defendants negligent assigning 30% fault to Ross Morgan and 5% to Maple Street HOA while holding Zillner herself 65% responsible. Damages totaled $3,335,000.12, including $935,000 for future medical expenses, $550,000 for past pain and suffering, and $1,850,000 for future noneconomic losses. After apportioning fault, her recovery was significantly reduced. The verdict underscores how comparative negligence can dramatically affect awards in premises liability cases.