Ratings & Reviews
Very informative, very professional, very attentive During a very trying time. Very grateful for them! Thank you, for taking care of me
Chris Largey is jurisprudence personified! He is first and foremost ethical and in these unpredictable times, ethics has become a rare trait. Mr. Largey possesses a deep understanding of the law as well as how it applies to people in thei...
Chris Largey is jurisprudence personified! He is first and foremost ethical and in these unpredictable times, ethics has become a rare trait. Mr. Largey possesses a deep understanding of the law as well as how it applies to people in their particular roles, be it judges, juries, attorneys, witnesses, doctors, hospitals, corporations and insurance companies. He also understands his clients needs and addresses them with honesty, compassion and always with their best interest at heart. Chris’s counsel is exemplary with regard to trusting his direction and recommendations of other professionals involved with handling a particular case as he utilizes only the best resources available. The staff of Largey Law are the finest I’ve had the pleasure of knowing, as they are professional, efficient and genuinely kind.
After I was involved in a serious not-at-fault auto accident, and in checking reviews on many local attorneys, we made an appointment with Largey Law. During the initial meeting, I had no doubt we had chose correctly and signed with their ...
After I was involved in a serious not-at-fault auto accident, and in checking reviews on many local attorneys, we made an appointment with Largey Law. During the initial meeting, I had no doubt we had chose correctly and signed with their firm to represent me. Chris Largey represented me and he along with his associate Kim Reno, well what can I say, they always had my best interest at heart. They not only made every step of the way as easy as possible, but always looked out for my best interest. They also made certain I received all the medical care I needed and handled all the paperwork involved with my claim. They were ALWAYS on top of every thing, every step of the way through to the claim settlement. They really cared about me, and on multiple occasions went above and beyond to help me through this this difficult situation, as during this my husband passed away from leukemia. It was nice to know they were there for me and handling this. I so appreciate everything Chris and Kim and staff have done for me through this and in finalizing my settlement, thank you so much! All I can say is I HIGHLY RECOMMEND Largey Law, they are professional, knowledgeable, responsive and most of all, a caring group of folks.
What a great law firm! Very compassionate and understanding. Always got back with me in a timely manner. I definitely recommend!
Very thorough and professional... Will use them again if the need arises.
Overcoming the “Obvious Danger” Defense in a Premises Liability Lawsuit
- posted: Nov. 15, 2021
- Personal Injury
Property owners in Florida have a duty to keep their premises reasonably safe and to warn visitors of dangerous conditions. This duty applies to hazards that the owner knew about, but which a visitor could not have discovered by exercising reasonable care. In fact, an owner sued by an injured visitor can raise the defense that the danger was open and obvious, so that no warning was necessary. Can the visitor still recover damages in such a case?
A recent appellate court opinion has answered affirmatively, underscoring that an “obvious danger” is not a complete defense but instead is a factor in deciding who is at fault for the accident. Florida juries are required to compare the parties’ negligence and assign a percentage of the blame to each party. A plaintiff’s damages will be reduced by the percentage of his or her fault, but the defendant usually will be required to pay something.
In the case, Pratus v. Marzucco's Construction & Coatings, Inc., an employee of an electrical subcontractor was injured when he stepped into an uncovered drain on a construction site. He admitted having seen the drain uncovered several times during his work on the project. The trial court dismissed the case. In reversing, the appeals court held that premises liability can apply if the property owner should have anticipated the harm, despite the dangerous condition being obvious.
The court’s opinion highlights important aspects of demonstrating a property owner’s negligence.
First, it is the danger — not the condition — that must be obvious. Even if you were injured due to a condition of the property that you knew about, you may have mistakenly thought the landowner put safeguards in place against any danger. For instance, in the Pratus case, the drain was at various times covered or uncovered. The door leading to it was sometimes marked with caution tape. But on the day of the accident, the caution tape had been removed although the drain was uncovered.
Second, owners are required to anticipate the behavior of those who enter the property. A construction site can be a veritable minefield of hazardous obstacles and traps. You might have needed to get to a particular location and there wasn’t any safer route you could have taken. Even visitors who knew of the danger could be partially excused if a safe alternative pathway did not exist.
All of this means that if the owner could expect that an obvious danger posed a realistic threat, the jury in a premises liability case can still hold the owner liable, even if the visitor was partly to blame.
If you were hurt on someone else’s property, Largey Law Firm’s experienced lawyers are ready to devote their skill and knowledge to winning you the compensation you deserve. We have offices in Tavares, Inverness and Clermont, Florida. Call 352-253-0456 or contact us online for a free consultation. Se habla español.