Cox Law Case Briefs
Welcome to Cox Law Case Briefs — a podcast series from Cox Law, PLLC where we break down recent Florida appellate court decisions in plain language. Each episode covers the facts, the ruling, and what it means for you.
Episode 1: Ortega v. JW Marriott — When Is “Open and Obvious” Actually “Open & Obvious”?
Listen to this episode:
A hotel guest tripped over a raised, unmarked concrete slab in a JW Marriott parking garage. The hotel argued the hazard was “open and obvious,” and the trial court agreed — throwing out the case before it reached a jury. But the Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that expert testimony about the camouflaged nature of the slab and violations of safety standards created a genuine factual dispute that only a jury could decide.
This episode covers what the “open and obvious” doctrine means in Florida premises liability law, why it did not shield the property owner here, and what this case means for injury victims throughout the state.
Read the full case law update: Ortega v. JW Marriott: When Is “Open and Obvious” Actually “Open & Obvious”?
Read the full opinion: Ortega v. JW Marriott Investment, LLC — Third District Court of Appeal (PDF)
Episode 2: Section 768.0427 — Tort Reform as Applied in Wolf v. Williams
Listen to this episode:
[Audio coming soon — check back shortly]
When a car crash happens, both the injured person and the at-fault driver want to know one thing: how much is this really going to cost? In Wolf v. Williams, Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed whether the 2023 tort reform statute — section 768.0427 — applies retroactively to lawsuits filed before the law took effect.
The case arose from a 2019 Jacksonville crash in which the injured driver claimed permanent spinal damage and significant medical expenses. The at-fault driver admitted fault but disputed the severity of the injuries. After the Legislature enacted section 768.0427, which limits the medical billing evidence a jury can consider, the defense tried to apply it to this pre-existing case. The trial court refused, and the Fifth DCA affirmed: the new statute does not apply to cases filed before March 24, 2023.
This episode breaks down the key legal takeaways from Wolf v. Williams, including why the filing date of your lawsuit now matters more than ever, how medical billing evidence is presented under the new statute, and what both injured plaintiffs and insured defendants need to know about Florida’s evolving tort reform landscape.
Read the full case law update: 768.0427: Tort Reform as Applied
Episode 3: McWhorter v. ESA — Battery Case Blues: Fan’s Stadium Stumble Gets a Partial Court Recharge
Listen to this episode:
A hotel guest tripped over a metal battery case left on the floor of Tropicana Field’s rotunda after a Tampa Bay Rays game. The trial court found the hazard was “open and obvious” and granted summary judgment for the defendant. But the Second District Court of Appeal partially reversed, holding that the duty to warn and the duty to maintain are separate obligations — and leaving a tripping hazard in a high-traffic walkway, even briefly, could breach the duty to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition.
This episode breaks down the key distinction between Florida’s duty to warn and duty to maintain in premises liability cases, why the “open and obvious” defense is not a blanket shield, and what this means for property owners and injury victims throughout the state.
Read the full case law update: Battery Case Blues: Fan’s Stadium Stumble Gets a Partial Court Recharge
Read the full opinion: McWhorter v. ESA — Second District Court of Appeal (PDF)
Questions? We Can Help.
If you have questions about a case discussed on Cox Law Case Briefs, or any Florida legal matter, we welcome the opportunity to hear from you.
(813) 685-8600
The information provided in these podcasts is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by listening to these episodes or by contacting Cox Law, PLLC by email, telephone, or other means of communication. Every case is different, and you should consult with an attorney about your specific situation.