Jury Clears EMTS in Fall Injury Lawsuit
Case Background
The case began with a complaint filed on August 19, 2021, by Julio Cesar Ceballo Fuentes against EMTS Parts & Services, Inc. Fuentes claimed he was injured after falling while attempting to climb onto his truck. He alleged that EMTS was responsible for creating or failing to address a hazardous condition that led to the incident. The complaint framed the dispute around contractual and professional interactions between Fuentes and EMTS that had financial and legal implications. EMTS denied any involvement in causing the fall and maintained that Fuentes acted independently. The case evolved into a legal conflict over negligence, liability, and responsibility for the alleged injury.
What Triggered the Dispute
The case centered on a disagreement rooted in contractual and professional obligations. One party claimed the other violated terms of a valid agreement. They cited failures in communication, unmet conditions, and a disregard for duties laid out in formal documents. The complaint also raised claims of negligence. It alleged careless actions or omissions resulted in harm. Supporting these claims were emails, written agreements, and witness accounts. Each side referenced legal standards and prior rulings to support its version of events. The disagreement grew over time, leading to this formal legal challenge.
The Harm Alleged
According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s actions caused clear and measurable harm. They reported not only financial loss but also disruptions to operations, reputation, or other professional setbacks. The nature of the injury varied but was rooted in either the breach of a legal duty or failure to fulfill terms of a contract. The evidence included written records and first-hand statements. These illustrated the consequences faced by the plaintiff after the alleged misconduct.
What the Plaintiff Wants
The Plaintiff sought legal remedies. This included compensation for financial losses and other appropriate relief allowed under state law. They asked the court to assign responsibility to the defendant and enforce accountability. Damages were framed in monetary terms but may also have included restitution or other forms of corrective action. The goal was to repair harm and prevent similar issues from recurring.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Julio Cesar Ceballo Fuentes
Counsel for Plaintiff: Carlos Enrique Verdecia
Defendant: EMTS Parts & Services, Inc.
Counsel for Defendant: Alexander Alvarez
What They’re Suing For
The complaint raised multiple legal claims. These included breach of contract and negligence. Each count outlined a specific duty the defendant allegedly failed to meet. The document also discussed how the failure contributed to the plaintiff’s harm. Citing legal precedents, the plaintiff argued they were entitled to relief. The case now rests on whether the court finds the claims supported by law and fact.
Defense
In its response, EMTS Parts & Services, Inc. denied all material allegations of negligence and asserted multiple affirmative defenses. EMTS claimed that the plaintiff, Julio Cesar Ceballo Fuentes, was negligent and that his own actions were the primary cause of the incident. Specifically, EMTS argued the Plaintiff voluntarily climbed onto his truck without direction or involvement from the company and fell due to his own misstep. They invoked the doctrine of comparative negligence to limit or bar recovery.
Additionally, EMTS raised defenses including failure to mitigate damages, lack of notice of any dangerous condition, and that any such condition was open and obvious. The company cited potential third-party liability, force majeure, and acts of God as intervening causes. EMTS also reserved rights under Florida law for judgment reductions and periodic payments, and sought attorney’s fees, asserting the Plaintiff’s claim lacked factual and legal merit. They demanded a jury trial on all triable issues.
Jury Verdict
On June 11, 2025, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant, EMTS Parts & Services, Inc., finding the company not liable for the injuries claimed by Julio Cesar Ceballo Fuentes. The jury concluded that EMTS did not cause or contribute to the Plaintiff’s fall and resulting damages, effectively rejecting all allegations of negligence brought in the complaint.