Premises liability law governs personal injury claims related to accidents on another person's property. Property owners may be held liable if they fail to maintain safe conditions or fail to provide warnings about hazards. Liability is based on negligence, and victims may seek compensation for damages such a medical expenses and lost wages. This is a critical risk area for property owners, requiring proper risk management and insurance coverage to mitigate potential legal and financial exposure.

Premises liability is a legal principle that holds property owners and occupiers accountable for injuries that occur on their property due to unsafe conditions or negligence. This area of law covers a range of incidents, including slip-and-fall accidents, injuries from hazardous conditions, and, increasingly, assaults due to inadequate security. The responsibility owed to the visitor depends on their status- invitee, licensee, or trespasser. The litigation landscape is becoming increasingly complex, with courts expanding the scope of liability and often awarding significant damages to injured parties. This trend is compelling property owners to implement comprehensive risk management practices and enhance safety measure to minimize potential claims. Insurers are also adapting by adjusting policy terms and premiums to address the growing frequency and severity of premises liability claims.

Background

Premises liability is a key area of law that governs personal injury claims arising from accidents or injuries occurring on another person’s property. This legal framework outlines the conditions under which property owners or occupiers can be held responsible for injuries sustained by visitors, tenants, or other third parties on their premises.
Under premises liability law, property owners are not automatically liable for every injury that occurs on their property. Instead, liability is determined by the owner’s duty of care, which varies based on the status of the visitor. This categorization typically includes three main groups: invitees, licensees, and trespassers. Each group is afforded different levels of protection under the law, which dictates the property owner’s responsibilities.

1. Invitees: This category includes individuals who come onto the property for the purpose of doing business with the owner, like a restaurant patron for example. Property owners owe the highest duty of care to invitees. They must correct, or warn about, any dangers they know about or should have reasonably known about based on an appropriate examination of the property. If an invitee suffers an injury due to the owner's negligence, they may have a strong claim for damages.
2. Licensees: Licensees are individuals who have permission to be on the property but are there for their own purposes, such as social guests. Property owners are required to warn licensees of known dangers that could cause harm but are not necessarily obligated to inspect the property or repair hazards.
3. Trespassers: Trespassers are individuals who enter the property without permission. Generally, property owners owe the least duty of care to trespassers, primarily focusing on avoiding willful or wanton harm. However, some jurisdictions have adopted "attractive nuisance" doctrines that hold property owners liable for injuries to children who trespass onto their property if there is a hazardous condition that may attract them (e.g., an unsecured swimming pool or construction site). In these cases, property owners must take reasonable precautions to protect children from potential dangers.

In cases where an individual is injured by a third party on the property, premises liability can also extend to situations involving inadequate security. Property owners, particularly those managing businesses, hotels, or apartment complexes, can be held liable for assaults, robberies, or other crimes if it can be proven that they failed to provide sufficient security measures in areas where such crimes were foreseeable. For instance, a shopping mall with a history of criminal activity might be expected to provide adequate lighting, security cameras, or on-site personnel. If they neglect to implement these precautions, and a crime occurs, the property owner may be responsible for the harm caused to individuals on the premises.
In recent years, U.S. courts have increasingly adopted broad theories of liability in premises liability cases, leading to substantial verdicts against property owners and businesses. Traditionally, premises liability required proof that the property owner knew or should have known of a dangerous condition and failed to act in a reasonable manner to mitigate it. However, some courts have expanded liability by allowing claims that hold property owners responsible for incidents occurring not just on their premises but in areas they do not directly control, such as parking lots or adjacent sidewalks. This shift has led to cases where property owners face liability even when they took reasonable safety measures, if the plaintiff can show that a foreseeably dangerous situation existed, regardless of the owner’s direct control over the area.

One driving factor behind these broad theories is the courts’ willingness to adopt novel interpretations of foreseeability and duty of care. In some cases, courts have imposed heightened expectations on property owners to anticipate specific risks, even those from third parties or unforeseeable events, if they can be deemed "foreseeable" in hindsight. For instance, property owners are now more frequently held liable for third-party criminal acts on or near their premises, under the theory that the owner could have reasonably foreseen the crime and taken preventative action. This trend has blurred the line between premises liability and negligent security, expanding the circumstances under which an owner can be sued and potentially resulting in exceptionally high financial awards, often based on punitive or emotional damages.

These evolving standards have significant implications, as they can lead to much larger payouts than traditionally awarded in premises liability cases. Some recent cases have yielded multi-million-dollar verdicts, with courts awarding significant compensation for noneconomic damages like pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages aimed at deterring perceived negligence. While advocates argue that these large awards reflect the serious harm caused to victims, critics caution that the expansion of liability places an undue burden on businesses and property owners, potentially leading to increased costs for insurance and defensive measures.

This trend of expanding liability is particularly pronounced in states like Georgia and Pennsylvania, where courts have shown a willingness to adopt broader interpretations of premises liability theories. In Georgia, for example, recent rulings have leaned heavily toward holding property owners accountable for third-party criminal acts, even when such acts are random or violent. The state’s courts have often allowed cases to proceed on the grounds that property owners could have foreseen the potential for harm, which has led to large verdicts in cases involving crimes on or near commercial premises. Similarly, Pennsylvania has seen a surge in premises liability cases where property owners are held liable for accidents or injuries in peripheral areas, such as sidewalks or nearby lots, under theories that emphasize community responsibility and the duty to provide safe environments. This pattern in both states reflects a judicial willingness to place more extensive obligations on property owners, potentially setting a precedent for other states to follow suit in expanding the scope and scale of premises liability.

Injuries and Damages

Common injuries involved in premises liability cases include:
• Slip and fall accidents
• Animal attacks
• Inadequate security
• Elevator/escalator injuries
• Swimming pool injuries
• Amusement park accidents
Following an injury, an individual may seek compensation for damages, which typically include medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and sometimes punitive damages if the owner's negligence is deemed particularly egregious. To succeed in a premises liability claim, the injured party must generally prove that the property owner had a duty to maintain a safe environment, breached that duty, and that this breach directly caused the injury.

Legislation and Regulation

Premises liability law in the United States is shaped by a complex framework of state statutes, case law, and federal regulations. Each state has its own set of premises liability statutes, often guided by judicial precedent and tort law principles, that dictate the responsibilities of property owners and occupants. These laws focus on maintaining safe premises for visitors, but the specifics vary considerably depending on the location, the status of the visitor, and the type of property involved.

One of the core legal principles in premises liability is the classification of visitors, which plays a crucial role in determining the duty of care owed. States generally classify visitors as invitees, licensees, or trespassers, and the duty of care the property owner owes to each category differs.

Federal regulations also impact premises liability. For instance, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandates that public accommodations and commercial facilities be accessible to individuals with disabilities. Under the ADA, property owners must ensure compliance with accessibility standards, which cover everything from entrance ramps to the width of doorways and restroom facilities. Failure to meet ADA standards can not only lead to liability under federal law but can also influence premises liability claims, as a lack of accessibility might contribute to accidents or injuries.

Additional regulatory considerations also apply. For example, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations require businesses to maintain safe working environments for employees, indirectly influencing premises liability by creating industry standards for safety. While OSHA regulations apply primarily to employee safety, they establish guidelines that property owners may also use to assess the overall safety of their premises.

Liability and Insurance

Premises liability represents a substantial financial risk for property owners, especially as courts increasingly hold them accountable for not only accidents but also certain crimes or third-party actions that occur on their properties, such as thefts or assaults. This expanded interpretation of liability places a greater burden on property owners to maintain exceptionally safe environments, or else face significant claims. To mitigate these potential costs, most property owners turn to liability insurance, which covers expenses like legal defense, settlements, and judgments. However, the increasing size and frequency of claims, coupled with some states’ broad liability standards, mean that insurance coverage alone may not be sufficient, especially in high-risk regions or industries. High-traffic businesses such as retail stores, hotels, and restaurants are particularly vulnerable, often requiring specialized or supplemental policies to adequately cover these risks.

The rise in claims and large verdicts is particularly notable in states like Georgia and Pennsylvania, where courts frequently award substantial damages to plaintiffs, especially in high-profile cases involving serious injuries or perceived failures to prevent foreseeable harm. Premises liability cases are becoming costlier to defend and the increased incidence of nuclear verdicts has led insurers to tighten policy terms and raise premiums. This trend is further exacerbated by plaintiffs leveraging expanded theories of liability, such as arguing that property owners failed to prevent foreseeable risks or failed to maintain adequate security. These theories have paved the way for a higher volume of claims, particularly for criminal incidents occurring on the property, and have resulted in larger settlements and payouts. In response, some insurers are limiting coverage or entirely excluding properties in high-risk categories, leaving property owners to contend with rising operational costs, including the possibility of higher deductibles and premiums.

To navigate these challenges, property owners and insurers alike are implementing more robust risk management and safety protocols to reduce the likelihood of incidents that could lead to litigation. Many property owners are investing in enhanced security systems, frequent property inspections, and specialized insurance products like umbrella policies to extend protection beyond standard liability limits. Insurers may require compliance with specific safety measures as a condition of coverage, and some property owners are seeking legal consultation to better understand liability risks. However, with the insurance market tightening and costs rising, managing premises liability is becoming increasingly complex and costly. In this environment, proactive planning, comprehensive insurance strategies, and heightened safety protocols are essential for property owners aiming to mitigate the growing financial risks associated with premises liability.

Litigation

The litigation environment for premises liability is increasingly complex and dynamic, marked by a rise in claims and substantial jury verdicts, particularly in jurisdictions known for broad interpretations of liability. Property owners face heightened scrutiny regarding their responsibilities to maintain safe premises, leading to legal challenges not only for accidents but also for injuries stemming from criminal acts or third-party actions. The following lawsuits were ranked the top 20 premises liability verdicts in the United States for 2022, according to topverdict.com.

1
Amount: $118M
Attorneys: C. Brian Jarrard of Jarrard Law Group, LLC; Charles E. Cox, Jr. of Charles E. Cox, Jr., LLC
Case: Cason v. Total Care Community Living/Properties LLC
Type: Invasion of Privacy, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Negligent Hiring, Psychological Injury, Failure to Supervise, Failure to Train, Adult Day Care Negligence, Negligent Tort, Vicarious Liability, Negligent Retention, Bodily Injury
State: Georgia
Summary: A jury awarded $118 million to Joey Cason, Jr., a developmentally disabled man, in a case against Total Care Community Living/Properties LLC. The lawsuit alleged severe abuse by staff members at the care facility, including physical assaults and psychological harm. The jury found the facility liable for failing to provide a safe environment for its residents. The ruling included $20M for Joey's pain and suffering, $8M for attorney's fees, and $90M in punitive damages.

2
Amount: $110M
Attorneys: Jesus Garcia Jr., Kevin C. Haynes of Kherkher Garcia LLP
Case: Lizet Guerra v. Roel Rodriguez, et al., 381st Dist. Ct., Starr County
Type: Motor Vehicle Accident, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Brain Injury, Failure to Supervise, Negligent Tort, Single-Vehicle Accident, Bodily Injury
State: Texas
Summary: In August 2022, a young woman injured in an ATV rollover accident won a $110M verdict (Lizet Guerra v. Roel Rodriguez, et al., 381st Dist. Ct., Starr County). $90,000,000 of the verdict was comprised of non-economic damages, namely, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and disfigurement. The plaintiff had permanent scarring on her abdomen and breast and suffered from long-term headaches—but had not received any treatment in the three years prior to trial. This is the largest verdict in Starr County history, a venue widely known for large jury verdicts.

3
Amount: $100M
Attorneys: Andrew Garza, Andrew Ranks, Alexa Mahony, Ryan McKeen of Connecticut Trial Firm, LLC
Case: Cruz, et al. v. Spec Personnel, LLC, et al.
Type: Dangerous Condition, Falling Object, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Work Accident, Negligent Tort, Paraplegia, Paralysis Injury, Occupational Injury, Bodily Injury
State: Connecticut
Summary: The case involves a significant personal injury claim where the plaintiff, Juan Cruz, was severely injured while working at a warehouse. On September 19, 2017, a 1300-pound load of lightbulbs fell from a rack, resulting in Cruz's spine being broken and causing paralysis from the waist down. After a three-week jury trial, the jury returned a $100 million verdict in favor of Cruz, holding Signify liable for $90 million (based upon an apportionment of liability of 90%).

4
Amount: $60,445,361
Attorneys: Arash Homampour of The Homampour Law Firm; Matthew B.F. Biren, John A. Roberts of Biren Law Group
Case: O’Malley v. Diamond Resorts Mgmt. Inc.
Type: Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Brain Injury, Failure to Train, Negligent Tort, Bodily Injury
State: California
Summary: In the case of O'Malley v. Diamond Resorts Management Inc., Priscilla O'Malley suffered a severe brain aneurysm while staying at a Diamond Resorts property in California. After her husband, Michael O'Malley, requested a welfare check by hotel staff, a maintenance worker reported falsely that the room was empty, which delayed her receiving timely medical help. By the time Michael reached her the following morning, Priscilla had suffered a significant brain injury, leading to anterograde amnesia, and now requires lifelong care. The O'Malleys sued Diamond Resorts, arguing the company failed to ensure workers were trained under a policy governing welfare check of guests. The couple originally proposed a $10 million settlement, which the company rejected. After a weekslong trial in 2022 before Orange County Superior Court Judge Frederick Paul Horn, the jury awarded the O'Malleys $60.5 million. Because Diamond Resorts rejected the initial settlement offer, the judge added $30 million in prejudgment interest to the total. The total award ultimately increased to approximately $100 million, given the growth in prejudgment interest. Diamond Resorts appealed, but the verdict was upheld by the Fourth Appellate District, with the court rejecting the defense’s claims related to causation and any potential comparative negligence by Michael O'Malley.

5
Amount: $40,250,000
Attorneys: Marshall S. May of Law Office of Marshall May LLC; Michael R. Goldman of Goldman Law PC
Case: Bonilla v. Tarantino Properties Inc.
Type: Assault & Battery, Failure to Warn, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Negligent Security, Gunshot Wound, Negligent Tort, Amputation, Bodily Injury
State: Texas
Summary: In Bonilla v. Tarantino Properties, Inc., the plaintiff claimed severe injuries from a shooting incident in the Green Arbor Apartments' parking lot, alleging inadequate security measures by the property owner. According to Bonilla, who was attacked by two assailants, the complex failed to monitor, secure, and light the property adequately, leading to the assault. The incident left him critically injured, ultimately necessitating bilateral leg amputations due to severe arterial damage and compartment syndrome. The defense argued that the attack was orchestrated by Bonilla’s girlfriend in retaliation for a recent dispute, even attempting to designate her as a responsible third party, a motion the court denied. The jury attributed 90% of the liability to the apartment complex and 10% collectively to the unidentified assailants. They awarded Bonilla $40.25 million, including $38 million for non-economic damages and $2.25 million for economic losses.

6
Amount: $22,000,000
Attorneys: Render Freeman of Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C.
Case: White v. McCommons
Type: Dangerous Condition, Falling Object, Motor Vehicle Accident, Motorcycle Accident, Premises Liability, Wrongful Death, Excavator Accident, Negligent Tort, Vehicular Accident
State: Georgia
Summary: Dr. Adam White was fatally injured on September 28, 2019, when a 62-foot tree struck him while he was riding a dirt bike at Durhamtown Off Road Park. The tree was knocked down by an excavator that had been improperly brought onto an active trail, violating the park’s rule prohibiting maintenance or construction work on the track while it was in use. Durhamtown owner Mike McCommons' negligence in bringing an excavator onto the active trail served as a major focus at trial. Despite the court's ruling on the inadmissibility of evidence in three other deaths at Durhamtown Off Road Park as well as McCommons' attempts to avoid personal liability by selling and re-branding the park, the Greene County jury ultimately found McCommons and his corporate entities liable. The jury delivered a $22 million verdict, the largest verdict ever awarded in the Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit and in Greene County, Georgia history.

7
Amount: $20,156,772
Attorneys: Charles S. Gucciardo, Jon-Paul Gabriele of The Gucciardo Law Firm PLLC
Case: Williams, et al. v. County of Nassau
Type: Dangerous Condition, Failure to Warn, Government Negligence, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Work Accident, Failure to Maintain, Negligent Tort, Occupational Injury, Bodily Injury
State: New York
Summary: A jury awarded $20 million to court officer Michael Williams after he was severely injured by a poorly secured 400-pound door at the Nassau County Criminal Courthouse. The incident occurred in January 2016 when the door slammed shut on him, causing significant nerve and spinal cord injuries. As a result, Williams is now "totally disabled," with limited arm movement and five neck vertebrae held together with titanium implants. The jury awarded Williams $10 million for future pain and suffering, $5 million for past pain and suffering, $3.3 million for lost earnings and pension benefits, and roughly $2 million for medical expenses and other losses.

8
Amount: $20,006,864
Attorneys: Madeleine N. Simmons, Michael T. Roth of Stewart Miller Simmons Trial Attorneys
Case: Lattimore v. Kim Brothers Kickin’ Kids LLC
Type: Negligent Supervision, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Sexual Abuse, Sexual Assault, Negligent Security, Emotional Distress, Psychological Injury, Children's Rights, Child Abuse, Negligent Tort
State: Georgia
Summary: Plaintiff Markisha Lattimore filed a suit against the martial arts school, Kim Brothers Kickin' Kids, LLC, and several unknown defendants (John Does 1-10). The case involves an incident that occurred in July 2019 during a summer camp program at Kim Brothers Taekwondo. Lattimore’s son, referred to as “A.B.”, a minor camper, was allegedly assaulted multiple times by another camper while in the restroom, which was part of the camp’s facilities. The central issues in the case include claims of negligence and breach of duty of care against Kim Brothers Kickin’ Kids, which operated the camp, for not ensuring a safe environment and failing to supervise the children properly. In September of 2022, Lattimore obtained a judgment exceeding $20 million against Kim Brothers Kickin’ Kids, LLC (“Kickin’ Kids”). Following the $20M judgment, Lattimore initiated garnishment actions against 12 financial services companies, including RBC Global Asset Management (U.S.), Inc. (Global). This case remains pending following the GA Supreme Court determination that Global is a registered investment advisor, and as such does not meet the statutory definition of a financial institution. Therefore, the garnishment action was invalid because Lattimore had used the wrong summons form. The court concluded that the Fulton County court had made an error in not setting aside the default judgment, and it reversed the decision, meaning the default judgment against Global was voided. The order was granted without prejudice.

9
Amount: $20M
Attorneys: Meranda Reifschneider, Raul E. Garcia, Jr. of Rubenstein Law, P.A.
Case: Pierre v. Consolidated Construction Services, LLC, et al.
Type: Dangerous Condition, Falling Object, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Negligent Tort
State: Florida
Summary: In October 2015, a 14-year-old boy was injured when a cement wall collapsed on his left leg. The wall fell after being struck by a trailer moved by a backhoe operated by a construction company owner. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants failed to ensure safety around the construction site and neglected to inspect and maintain the wall. He suffered severe injuries, including a tibial plateau fracture, compartment syndrome, permanent scarring, and lasting knee issues, requiring multiple surgeries and potentially more in the future. The defendants argued that other parties, including the city and property owners, shared responsibility. The construction company also argued that the general contractor held primary safety responsibilities. The general contractor countered, blaming the construction company’s backhoe operator for the accident. After a 7-day trial, the jury found both the construction company and general contractor liable, assigning 40% of the fault to the construction company and 60% to the general contractor. The jury awarded $20 million in damages: $1.5 million for future medical expenses, $8.5 million for past pain and suffering, and $10 million for future pain and suffering.

10
Amount: $19M
Attorneys: Michael Calder of Rosen & Perry PC
Case: Fraser v. O’Black
Type: Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Negligent Tort, Quadriplegia, Paralysis Injury, Bodily Injury
State: Pennsylvania
Summary: In March 2022, a Westmoreland County jury awarded Michael Fraser $19 million in damages, marking the largest verdict in county history. According to the testimony, the O’Blacks were utilizing a five-foot rubber raft in the pool. The plaintiff argued the raft was not designed to be used in the swimming pool and the defendants were negligent for doing so. The defendants were also alleged to have been negligent by covering up a warning affixed to the raft indicating the raft was not to be used for diving. When Fraser dove into the pool, he struck the raft, which propelled him into the water, causing him to break his neck and become quadriplegic. The defendants argued that the plaintiff alone was negligent and therefore, solely responsible for his injuries. The defendants also argued that the plaintiff made the choices connected with the dive and should not recover from the homeowners. Following a 5-day trial, the jury found Fraser 30% negligent and the O’Blacks 70% negligent. The jury awarded a total of $19 million, broken down as follows: $9M for past and future medical expenses; $3M for pain, suffering, and inconvenience; $3M for the loss of life’s pleasures; $3M for embarrassment; and $1M for disfigurement.

11
Amount: $18,794,132
Attorneys: Brian J. Kim, Maureen Hennessey of Savin Bursk Law
Case: Choto v. Dorothy D. Inc., et al.
Type: Dangerous Condition, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Slip & Fall, Negligent Maintenance, Negligent Tort
State: California
Summary: In May 2018, a 32-year-old man slipped on liquid left on the floor at a McDonald’s in Lomita, operated by Dorothy D. Inc., which admitted full responsibility but disputed the extent of the injuries claimed. The plaintiff, who had a prior history of lumbar spine injuries and surgeries, argued that the fall aggravated his condition, requiring a revision microdecompression surgery and a spinal cord stimulator. The defense argued that the plaintiff’s back complaints were due to pre-existing issues and that his injury from the incident was a temporary strain. After a 3.5-day trial and 3-hour jury deliberation, the jury awarded $18,794,132.14 in damages, including $365,962.59 for past medical costs, $654,269.55 for future medical expenses, $1,773,900 for past non-economic damages, and $16 million for future non-economic damages. No contributory or comparative negligence was assigned to the plaintiff.

12
Amount: $18,075,232
Attorneys: Jared Perkins of Perkins & Perkins Law PLLC; John C. Duff, Matthew S. Hull of Hilliard Martinez Gonzalez
Case: Garza v. Mostaghasi Enterprises, et al.
Type: Construction Accident, Dangerous Condition, Negligent Supervision, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Work Accident, Fall, Negligent Hiring, Negligent Training, Ladder Accident, Gross Negligence, Negligent Tort, Occupational Injury, Bodily Injury
State: Texas
Summary: In November 2022, a Nueces County jury awarded Chris Garza $18 million in damages after he suffered severe injuries on a job site for Mostaghasi Enterprises, Inc. (MEI) and R & T Framing. Garza fell from a ladder while installing a structural beam that became loose due to nails that were too short. The nails were provided by MEI and put in the nail gun by R & T. The accident resulted in a compound forearm fracture, requiring five surgeries and a skin graft. The jury found both MEI and R & T Framing grossly negligent for failing to exercise ordinary care, awarding Garza over $15 million in actual damages, plus $2 million against MEI and $300,000 against R & T Framing in exemplary damages. The court assigned 90% responsibility to MEI and R & T Framing, citing their failure to provide proper training, supervision, and materials for a safe job site.

13
Amount: $16,420,725
Attorneys: Brett J. Schreiber of Singleton Schreiber
Case: Neeley v. State of California
Type: Dangerous Condition, Falling Object, Government Negligence, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Brain Injury, Negligent Maintenance, Negligent Tort, Paraplegia, Paralysis Injury
State: California
Summary: In August 2020, 75-year-old Jane Neeley was crushed by a large branch that detached from a tree and fell onto the roadway. As a result, Neeley suffered a brain bleed, femur fracture, cervical fractures from C2 to C8, and a burst fracture (injury to the spine in which the vertebral body is severely compressed), leaving her paraplegic. She sued the State of California, alleging that the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) failed to maintain the roadway and trees properly, creating dangerous conditions. Neeley’s counsel argued that Caltrans had not conducted adequate annual tree inspections, which could have revealed the risk of the tree limb's failure. Initially, the state claimed it had no notice of the potential danger and was immune from liability under the natural condition immunity, which protects public entities from liability for injuries caused by natural conditions on unimproved property. However, after depositions from witnesses and experts, the state admitted liability and causation, and the case proceeded to trial on damages only. Neeley sought recovery for past and future medical expenses, including 24-hour attendant care, as well as damages for pain and suffering. The total past medical expenses were stipulated to be $1,837,142.36, with future medical costs estimated between $5 million and $6.5 million. Neeley’s counsel requested $38 million in total damages, including $30 million for pain and suffering, while the defense argued that Neeley's life expectancy was reduced and future medical costs totaled between $3.5 million and $5 million, requesting a maximum of $11.8 million. After a six-day trial, the jury awarded Neeley $16,420,725.36, including $5,083,583 for future medical costs, $7.8 million for future pain and suffering, $1.7 million for past pain and suffering, and $1,837,142.36 for past medical costs. Post trial, defense counsel noted that Neeley’s past medical costs were reduced to $230,674.79 after the verdict by stipulation of parties before trial. The parties are not pursuing post-trial motions or appeals.

14
Amount: $15,680,000
Attorneys: Jason B. Stephens of Stephens Law; Bill Kennedy, Joan Ballard of Bill Kennedy Law
Case: Wells, et al. v. Monticello Asset Management Inc.
Type: Dangerous Condition, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Work Accident, Wrongful Death, Electrical Injury, Negligent Tort, Occupational Injury, Bodily Injury
State: Texas
Summary: In May 2017, Kiley Russell, Jackson Wells, and Devin Schares were attempting to move a flagpole at the River Ranch Apartments in Sherman, Texas, when the pole came into contact with live electricity wires, resulting in Russell’s death and injuries to Wells and Schares. The jury found Monticello Asset Management Inc. negligent for placing the flagpole too close to overhead power lines, which was determined to be the proximate cause of the accident. In a 10-2 verdict, the jury awarded Russell's widow and two sons $10.5 million for their loss of companionship and mental anguish. Additionally, Wells was awarded approximately $2.4 million, and Schares received about $2.6 million in damages and lost wages, marking the largest injury or wrongful death verdict in Grayson County’s history. However, in January 2024, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the judgment in a “take-nothing” ruling. The Court concluded that Monticello did not owe a duty to the plaintiffs as it did not control the work being done and had no reason to anticipate the plaintiffs’ actions. Following the reversal, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated plans to file a motion for rehearing en banc.

15
Amount: $15,466,597
Attorneys: Bryan Blevins, Matthew Matheny of Provost Umphrey Law Firm
Case: Wilder v. CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric
Type: Dangerous Condition, Failure to Warn, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Work Accident, Workplace Negligence, Brain Injury, Fall, Negligent Tort, Occupational Injury, Bodily Injury
State: Texas
Summary: In March 2019, Garett Wilder, a former electrical worker, fell 40 feet from a 100-foot CenterPoint transmission pole near Tomball after a damaged step bolt detached, causing him to suffer life-altering injuries, including a heart stoppage upon impact. Wilder sued CenterPoint Energy, alleging the company was aware of the damaged bolts and was negligent in maintaining the equipment. A Harris County jury found CenterPoint liable, awarding Wilder $16 million.

16
Amount: $15,215,262
Attorneys: Rick Klingbeil of Rick Klingbeil P.C.; Michael Rosenbaum, Gretchen Mandekor of Rosenbaum Law Group, PC
Case: Owens v. MT. Hood Ski Bowl, LLC, et al.
Type: Bicycle Accident, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Negligent Maintenance, Negligent Tort, Paraplegia, Paralysis Injury, Bodily Injury, Non-Motorized Vehicle Accident
State: Oregon
Summary: In July 2016, Gabriel B. Owens, a former professional mountain bike racer, was paralyzed after crashing into a wooden signpost located next to the Cannonball bike trail at Mt. Hood Skibowl. Owens collided with the signpost after hitting a rut on the trail, which caused him to lose control of his bike. His lawyers argued that the ski resort was negligent for installing the signpost too close to the trail and for failing to install safer, collapsible markers. During the trial, the defense claimed Owens was responsible for the crash due to excessive speed and aggressive riding. The jury awarded Owens $11.4 million, which was later settled for $10.5 million after the resort threatened an appeal.

17
Amount: $14,000,000
Attorneys: Scott J. Zlotolow of Zlotolow & Associates P.C.
Case: Brown v. NYCTA
Type: Dangerous Condition, Government Negligence, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Slip & Fall, Failure to Maintain, Negligent Tort, Bodily Injury
State: New York
Summary: This case involves a personal injury claim in which the plaintiff, Viola Brown, alleged she was injured when a New York City bus made a sudden stop, causing her to fall. The central issue was whether the bus stop was unusually violent, as required by law for the plaintiff to succeed in her claim against the Transit Authority for negligence. In such cases, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the stop was more than just a routine "jerk or jolt" but was sufficiently violent to be considered negligent behavior by the driver. The Transit Authority moved for summary judgment, arguing that the stop was typical and not violent enough to support the plaintiff's case. The court ruled in favor of the Transit Authority, granting summary judgment. However, this decision was appealed. The appellate court reversed the ruling, finding that the Transit Authority failed to prove the stop was not unusual and violent and that there was a genuine issue of fact for trial.

18
Amount: $13,427,146
Attorneys: Thomas J. Wuori, Blake K. Ringsmuth of Ringsmuth Wuori PLLC
Case: Phillips v. Dowrick
Type: Dangerous Condition, Falling Object, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Failure to Maintain, Negligent Tort, Bodily Injury
State: Michigan
Summary: Plaintiff was injured when a garage door fell on her head, causing severe neck injuries. The landlord had bought the house in foreclosure and rented it out within 30 days, without conducting safety inspections or evaluations. Months after the city notified the defendant of several inspection violations, the garage door fell on the plaintiff causing severe neck injuries and necessitating C5-6 neck fusion surgery. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the landlord was responsible for failing to ensure that the property was safe from the time the plaintiff moved in. The jury found the landlord liable and awarded the plaintiff $13,426,000 in damages, including both economic and non-economic losses.

19
Amount: $12,211,641
Attorneys: Alan Van Gelder, Aaron L. Osten of Greene Broillet & Wheeler LLP
Case: Vu v. 2447 Pacific Coast Highway LLC, et al.
Type: Dangerous Condition, Failure to Warn, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Slip & Fall, Brain Injury, Negligent Maintenance, Emotional Distress, Negligent Tort
State: California
Summary: Plaintiff Jessica Vu, a 38-year-old counselor, suffered a traumatic brain injury after slipping on improperly installed epoxy flooring in a building where she worked. The fall occurred after she had been warned about wet carpet earlier that day, but the carpet cleaning crew and property managers claimed it had been adequately dried. The plaintiff contended that both the wet carpet and the epoxy flooring were unsafe, and that the traumatic brain injury caused long-term cognitive and emotional issues, including difficulty with memory, multitasking, and executive function. Vu ultimately had to resign from her job. The defendants argued that the carpet was dry, the epoxy was properly installed, and any cognitive issues were due to pre-existing depression and anxiety. After a three-week trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff $12,211,641 in total damages, including past and future lost earnings, future medical expenses, and substantial non-economic damages for pain and suffering.

20
Amount: $10,825,000
Attorneys: Evan M. Smola, Michael T. Mertz of Hurley, McKenna & Mertz, P.C.
Case: Karin Carlson v. Going Places, LLC, et al.
Type: Assault & Battery, Personal Injury, Premises Liability, Sexual Assault, Negligent Security, Emotional Distress, Psychological Injury, Negligent Tort
State: Illinois
Summary: Karin Carlson was injured when an intruder entered her apartment building through an unlocked front door with a malfunctioning lock. The defendants, who owned and managed the building, argue that they are not liable because there was no prior history of criminal activity, the plaintiff’s own unit door was also unlocked, and they had no notice of the malfunctioning lock. The court examined whether the defendants voluntarily assumed a duty to protect tenants by providing security measures, and whether their failure to maintain the lock was negligent. The court noted that while landlords generally do not have a duty to protect tenants from third-party criminal acts, exceptions exist when landlords voluntarily undertake security measures. It found that the malfunctioning lock could have made a criminal act foreseeable and raised issues of proximate cause and notice of the lock’s condition.

Future Outlook

The future of premises liability is poised to evolve significantly, driven by ongoing legal, societal, and technological changes. As courts in states like Georgia and Pennsylvania continue to interpret liability standards broadly, property owners will face increasing pressure to ensure comprehensive safety measures, even for incidents that may previously have fallen outside their purview. With premises owners held accountable for a wide range of incidents, including criminal acts on their property and accidents involving third parties, this broad liability trend could further increase insurance premiums and create a challenging legal environment for owners of large commercial and residential properties.

The expanding scope of premises liability may also spark innovation in safety technology and risk management practices as property owners look for efficient ways to meet legal standards and protect themselves from liability. Enhanced surveillance, predictive safety technology, and automated safety compliance tools could become standard in many commercial properties as owners seek proactive solutions to avoid costly litigation. Additionally, insurance providers might develop specialized policies tailored to address the specific liability risks associated with certain industries or locations. In the long term, the trend toward broad premises liability could reshape operational practices, encouraging property owners to adopt more comprehensive safety protocols and potentially leading to a nationwide shift in how premises liability is managed and litigated.

In the News

Additional Items