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:
Transcript
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:
Transcript
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:
Transcript
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)
Episode 4: Eckert Realty Corp. v. Strazzeri — Ramp It Up: Florida Court Slopes Away Liability in Slip-and-Fall Tumble
Listen to this episode:
Transcript
An office employee fell on a ramp she had used hundreds of times over four years. She sued the property owner for premises liability, claiming the ramp’s slope exceeded ADA and building code standards. The jury found the property owner 70% liable — but the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the owner had no actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition, and the employee’s own extensive familiarity with the ramp negated any claim of superior knowledge.
This episode breaks down the key premises liability principles at issue, including what it means to prove notice of a hazard, why building code violations alone may not establish liability, and what this case means for property owners and injury claimants in Florida.
Read the full case law update: Ramp It Up: Florida Court Slopes Away Liability in Slip-and-Fall Tumble
Read the full opinion: Eckert Realty Corp. v. Strazzeri — Fourth District Court of Appeal (PDF)
Episode 5: Garcia v. Yellow Cab — Post-Judgment Collection: When the Judgment Debtor Stonewalls
Listen to this episode:
Transcript
Yellow Cab settled a negligence case for $150,000 — and then never paid. When the plaintiff turned to post-judgment discovery, Yellow Cab’s corporate representative testified he had no knowledge of the company’s finances, taxes, lawsuits, or even who owned the company. To every question: “I have no idea.” The trial court then blocked the plaintiff from deposing Yellow Cab’s attorney. But the Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that certiorari was warranted because the denial of discovery caused irreparable harm — and that fee payment records and corporate identity documents are not protected by attorney-client privilege.
This episode covers the complexities of post-judgment discovery, why a corporation must affirmatively prepare its Rule 1.310(b)(6) representative, when certiorari lies to review discovery orders, and what this case means for judgment creditors throughout Florida.
Read the full case law update: Post Judgment Collection
Read the full opinion: Garcia v. Yellow Cab Company — Third District Court of Appeal (PDF)
View on 3D DCA: Case No. 3D24-0391 — Florida Appellate Case Information System
Episode 6: Jones V. Vasilias — Liability for Supervisors: Negligent Employment Claims Survive Admission of Vicarious Liability
Listen to this episode:
Transcript
A bicyclist was struck by a van leaving a car dealership. The dealership admitted it owned the van and that the driver was acting within the scope of his employment. But the plaintiff also sued the driver’s supervisors individually for negligent hiring, training, retention, supervision, and entrustment. The trial court dismissed those claims, reasoning that the dealership’s admission of vicarious liability made the individual negligent employment claims redundant. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that an employer’s admission of vicarious liability does not eliminate direct negligence claims against individual supervisors.
This episode covers what this ruling means for negligent employment claims in Florida, why individual supervisors can still face personal liability even when the employer accepts responsibility, and how this decision impacts litigation strategy for plaintiffs and defendants alike.
Read the full case law update: Personal Liability for Supervisors: Negligent Employment Claims Survive Admission of Vicarious Liability – Jones v. Vasilias
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.