Patent Attorney Review of Pride Family Brands v. Carl’s Patio The issue of novelty may not garner much attention with the patent office during the application phase, but that all changes during litigation when opposing patent attorneys seek to invalidate your patent rights. One of the main requirements for obtaining patent rights is novelty, which states that: […]
Slip & Fall Attorney Review of Ramsey v. Home Depot Virtually everyone has visited a business and said “somebody is going to get hurt” from a dangerous condition. Diving a little deeper, you may have wondered whether the owner would be liable if somebody actually becomes injured. Your slip & fall attorney will first determine whether the danger is concealed or open and obvious. If the danger is concealed, then the business owner has a duty to warn the public of the hidden danger, but only if the business itself knew or should have known of the concealed danger. Alternatively, a business can be held liable for injuries that result from a failure to use ordinary care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Open and Obvious Hazard In Florida, while a business owes a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, there is no duty to warn against an open and obvious condition which is not inherently dangerous.[1] However, liability is always apportioned according to fault. Thus, even when the danger is open and obvious, an injured party may still argue whether the condition was dangerous and whether the owner or occupier of the land should have anticipated that the dangerous condition would cause injury, despite that the danger was open and obvious.[2] Facts In the instant case, Gudrun Ramsey was shopping at Home Depot. After shopping, she returned to the parking lot and tripped on a wheel stop that is common place in many parking lots. Ramsey sued home depot for negligence claiming that home depot breached its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and also breached its duty to warn of any dangerous, [...]
Patent Attorney Review of Correct Craft IP Holdings, LLC v. Trick Towers, LLC South Florida Patent Attorneys keep busy with the steady stream of innovation coming from the marine industry. In Correct Craft Holdings v. Trick Towers [1], the patent attorney for the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the Defendant had sold or offered for sale a water sport tower contained in the Plaintiff’s patent. It is not uncommon, however, for the Defendant who was served with the complaint for patent infringement to simply […]
Dog Bite Attorney Review of Maddox v. Florida Farm Bureau General, Etc. In Maddox v. Florida Farm Bureau General, Etc., dog bite attorneys on both sides agreed that Crystal Maddox and her son Ivan were each bit in the face by the dog, Dixie. [1] The bite to Maddox came after she attempted to remove Dixie’s bite from Ivan’s face. The question that the dog bite attorneys disputed over was whether […]
In Coddington v. Nunez, an accident attorney brought a client’s case before the court on behalf of Jaime Nunez. [1] Mr. Nunez was involved in an automobile accident in which his vehicle was struck by Thomas and Gwynneth Coddington. The case put forth by the accident attorney returned a jury verdict finding $600,000 in total sustained damages. However, the jury found that Mr. Nunez was twenty-five percent liable for his injuries and accordingly, his accident attorney secured a final judgment in the amount of $488,500. See Id. The appellate court reversed because the trial court erred when it […]
