Suzuki v. Winckler
Fla. 5th DCA (2026) – Appellate Law
Facts
Plaintiff was injured on a Suzuki motorcycle and brought product liability claims. Suzuki had issued a product recall related to plaintiff’s theory of liability, and the trial court allowed the product recall into evidence at trial over objection. Suzuki appealed.
Holding
Affirmed. There is some important nuance here not included, but in short, the product recall was relevant, not unfairly prejudicial, and not an inadmissible subsequent remedial measure.
Karlsson v. Doe
Fla. 6th DCA (2026) – Appellate Law
Facts
Plaintiff reported to the ED post-hysterectomy with problems with her catheter. Suffice it to say here, in investigating her problem, she believed the doctor performed an inappropriate gynecological exam. Plaintiff sued multiple involved doctors and nurses – some of which properly went through pre-suit and others which did not because Plaintiff characterized some of the torts as sexual assault and not medical negligence. Following unsuccessful motions to dismiss, certain defendants appealed.
Holding
Reversed. “[T]he misconduct is alleged to have occurred in the emergency department of a hospital during the course of what Karlsson represented to be a legitimate and necessary medical examination after consulting with the on-call urologist. . . . Based on these allegations, it is clear that Karlsson's alleged misconduct arose from the rendering of medical care or services and thus falls within the statutory definition of a claim for medical malpractice.” Therefore, because all of the claims sounded in medical negligence, all of the claims that were not subject to proper pre-suit should have been dismissed.
Teed v. Everest Campus
Fla. 2nd DCA (2026) – Appellate Law
Facts
Plaintiffs recovered 18% of their alleged damages at trial (mainly because their consequential damage claim was rejected). Post-trial, both sides filed motions seeking attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party. The trial court denied both motions finding neither side the prevailing party. The homeowners appealed.
Holding
Reversed. The property owner was not a “contractor”; therefore, the property manager was not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity.
Lam v. Modern Tampa Home
Fla. 2nd DCA (2026) – Appellate Law
Facts
Plaintiffs recovered 18% of their alleged damages at trial (mainly because their consequential damage claim was rejected). Post-trial, both sides filed motions seeking attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party. The trial court denied both motions finding neither side the prevailing party. The homeowners appealed.
Holding
Reversed. It is largely immaterial the homeowners recovered “only” 18% of the damages sought because the “significant issue” in the litigation was which party breached the contact which was resolved entirely for the homeowners, and they were also awarded some damages.
Our team is available to discuss the topics written here and ready to provide additional information contained in this article. Contact us for more information.
