Preview
Filing # 102650566 E-Filed 02/03/2020 02:36:21 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
CASE No.: 18-000223-CA
DANIEL SHELATZ and ALYN SHELATZ,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PUNTA GORDA HMA, LLC d/b/a BAYFRONT
HEALTH PUNTA GORDA,
Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT; OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
AND JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Defendant’s, PUNTA GORDA HMA,
LLC d/b/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PUNTA GORDA, Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict; or
in the Alternative Motion for New Trial, and the Court having heard arguments of counsel and
being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
The Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict is hereby GRANTED; and in
teaching this decision, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1 During the trial of this cause, and at the close of Plaintiffs case in chief, the
Defendant’s presented a Motion for Directed Verdict, and in accordance with Rule 1.480(b),
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court reserved ruling on Defendant’s motion and allowed
the trial to proceed.
2. The trial of this cause concluded to a jury verdict on November 7, 2019, finding
Defendant 10% negligent and at the conclusion of trial, the Court advised all parties and counsel
that it would address any and all pending rulings and other procedural matters at a later date and
time.
3 On November 22, 2019, the Defendant timely filed a Renewed Motion for Directed
Verdict with attachments that included documentary evidence presented at trial, and the transcripts
of swom trial testimony from several key witnesses, including Plaintiff, DANIEL SHELATZ.
4. Upon reviewing the Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict, all
attachments and relevant trial testimony cited therein, along with trial testimony of Plaintiff,
DANIEL SHELATZ, this Court finds the following facts:
a) Prior to October 14, 2017, Ait Mechanical Service Corporation (““AMSCO”)
entered into a written construction service agreement with Defendant as an
independent contractor for the purpose of replacing multiple HVAC units
located on the roof of its hospital;
b) Plaintiff, DANIEL SHELATZ, was employed by AMSCO and assigned as the
project manager for the subject HVAC construction project being performed on
Defendant’s hospital roof;
°) Plaintiff, DANIEL SHELATZ, testified that as the project manager for
AMSCO he is responsible for making sure that AMSCO’s employees conduct
their work on Defendant’s hospital roof in a safe manner and in accordance with
AMSCO’s safety protocols;
d) Plaintiff, DANIEL SHELATZ, testified that on more than one occasion during
the subject HVAC construction project, he went up and physically walked on
the Defendant’s hospital roof to perform certain tasks, including inspecting the
roof for potential safety hazards, determining which HVAC units the Defendant
Page [2 of 2
needed replaced, deciding whether any temporary ductwork would need to be
ordered, and if so, take measurements and determine how and where the
ductwork would be placed on the roof and stretched between the HVAC units;
e) Plaintiff, DANIEL SHELATZ, testified that the area where AMSCO placed and
ran the temporary ductwork on the hospital roof would be considered part of
AMSCO’s construction work area or work zone;
Plaintiff, DANIEL SHELATZ, testified and acknowledged that prior to the day
of his accident, he did see and was aware of the unprotected leading edge of the
hospital roof where he stepped off and fell on October 14, 2017.
5. Therefore, after evaluating all of the facts, evidence, and testimony presented at
trial in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, including allowing every reasonable inference that
could be deduced therefrom, this Court finds there is no view to support a verdict for Plaintiff,
DANIEL SHELATZ, in this cause. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relies upon the legal
standard for granting a motion for directed verdict under Rule 1.480, Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure and prior judicial precedence. See Sims v. Cristinzio, 898 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA
2005); Williamson v. Superior Insurance Company, 746 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); and
Jacobs v. Westgate, 766 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
6. Duty to warn was a hotly contested issue in this case and briefed extensively. In
accordance with well-settled Florida law dealing with similar types of facts and issues, this Court
concludes that Plaintiff’s claims presented at trial fail as a matter of law as the Defendant did not
owe Plaintiff any legal duty to warn him about the alleged dangerous condition at issue in this
cause prior to Plaintiff's accident because Plaintiff had the same knowledge. Therefore, Defendant
is entitled to a directed verdict and entry of judgment in its favor on all said claims. In reaching
Page [3 of 3
this conclusion, the Court relies upon the legal rationale and prior judicial precedent established in
the following Florida decisions: Sterling Financial and Management, Inc. v. Gitenis, 117 So. 3d
790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Strickland v. Timco Aviation Services, Inc., 66 So.3d 1002 (Fla. Ist
DCA 2011); Morales v. Weil, 44 So.3d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Johnson v. Boca Raton
Community Hospital, 985 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Pertl v. Exit Information Guide, Inc.,
708 So.2d 956 (Fla. Ist DCA 1997); and Ahi v. Stone Southwest, Inc., 666 So. 2d 922 (Fla. Ist
DCA 1995).
7 Accordingly, Defendant's Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict is GRANTED,
and as such, the Defendant’s alternate Motion for New Trial is hereby moot.
8 The jury’s VERDICT dated November 7, 2019, is hereby VACATED, with a
VERDICT to be entered in favor of the Defendant.
9. The Plaintiffs, DANIEL SHELATZ and ALYN SHELATZ, shall take nothing by
this action and Defendant, PUNTA GORDA HMA, LLC d/b/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PUNTA
GORDA, shall go hence without day.
10. The Court retains jurisdiction of this action to enter such further orders as are
proper, including, without limitation, the taxation of attomey's fees and costs.
DONE AND ORDERED
,
Nita Serrano
Page |4 off 4
Christopher David Gray , ,
Hunter Higdon , ,
Donna Tisch , ,
Hunter Alston Higdon , ,
Scott L. Terry , ,
Page [5 of 5
Preview
Filing # 102650566 E-Filed 02/03/2020 02:36:21 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE No.: 18-000223-CA DANIEL SHELATZ and ALYN SHELATZ, Plaintiffs, vs. PUNTA GORDA HMA, LLC d/b/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PUNTA GORDA, Defendant. ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Defendant’s, PUNTA GORDA HMA, LLC d/b/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PUNTA GORDA, Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict; or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial, and the Court having heard arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict is hereby GRANTED; and in teaching this decision, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1 During the trial of this cause, and at the close of Plaintiffs case in chief, the Defendant’s presented a Motion for Directed Verdict, and in accordance with Rule 1.480(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court reserved ruling on Defendant’s motion and allowed the trial to proceed. 2. The trial of this cause concluded to a jury verdict on November 7, 2019, finding Defendant 10% negligent and at the conclusion of trial, the Court advised all parties and counsel that it would address any and all pending rulings and other procedural matters at a later date and time. 3 On November 22, 2019, the Defendant timely filed a Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict with attachments that included documentary evidence presented at trial, and the transcripts of swom trial testimony from several key witnesses, including Plaintiff, DANIEL SHELATZ. 4. Upon reviewing the Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict, all attachments and relevant trial testimony cited therein, along with trial testimony of Plaintiff, DANIEL SHELATZ, this Court finds the following facts: a) Prior to October 14, 2017, Ait Mechanical Service Corporation (““AMSCO”) entered into a written construction service agreement with Defendant as an independent contractor for the purpose of replacing multiple HVAC units located on the roof of its hospital; b) Plaintiff, DANIEL SHELATZ, was employed by AMSCO and assigned as the project manager for the subject HVAC construction project being performed on Defendant’s hospital roof; °) Plaintiff, DANIEL SHELATZ, testified that as the project manager for AMSCO he is responsible for making sure that AMSCO’s employees conduct their work on Defendant’s hospital roof in a safe manner and in accordance with AMSCO’s safety protocols; d) Plaintiff, DANIEL SHELATZ, testified that on more than one occasion during the subject HVAC construction project, he went up and physically walked on the Defendant’s hospital roof to perform certain tasks, including inspecting the roof for potential safety hazards, determining which HVAC units the Defendant Page [2 of 2 needed replaced, deciding whether any temporary ductwork would need to be ordered, and if so, take measurements and determine how and where the ductwork would be placed on the roof and stretched between the HVAC units; e) Plaintiff, DANIEL SHELATZ, testified that the area where AMSCO placed and ran the temporary ductwork on the hospital roof would be considered part of AMSCO’s construction work area or work zone; Plaintiff, DANIEL SHELATZ, testified and acknowledged that prior to the day of his accident, he did see and was aware of the unprotected leading edge of the hospital roof where he stepped off and fell on October 14, 2017. 5. Therefore, after evaluating all of the facts, evidence, and testimony presented at trial in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, including allowing every reasonable inference that could be deduced therefrom, this Court finds there is no view to support a verdict for Plaintiff, DANIEL SHELATZ, in this cause. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relies upon the legal standard for granting a motion for directed verdict under Rule 1.480, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and prior judicial precedence. See Sims v. Cristinzio, 898 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Williamson v. Superior Insurance Company, 746 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); and Jacobs v. Westgate, 766 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). 6. Duty to warn was a hotly contested issue in this case and briefed extensively. In accordance with well-settled Florida law dealing with similar types of facts and issues, this Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims presented at trial fail as a matter of law as the Defendant did not owe Plaintiff any legal duty to warn him about the alleged dangerous condition at issue in this cause prior to Plaintiff's accident because Plaintiff had the same knowledge. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to a directed verdict and entry of judgment in its favor on all said claims. In reaching Page [3 of 3 this conclusion, the Court relies upon the legal rationale and prior judicial precedent established in the following Florida decisions: Sterling Financial and Management, Inc. v. Gitenis, 117 So. 3d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Strickland v. Timco Aviation Services, Inc., 66 So.3d 1002 (Fla. Ist DCA 2011); Morales v. Weil, 44 So.3d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Johnson v. Boca Raton Community Hospital, 985 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Pertl v. Exit Information Guide, Inc., 708 So.2d 956 (Fla. Ist DCA 1997); and Ahi v. Stone Southwest, Inc., 666 So. 2d 922 (Fla. Ist DCA 1995). 7 Accordingly, Defendant's Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict is GRANTED, and as such, the Defendant’s alternate Motion for New Trial is hereby moot. 8 The jury’s VERDICT dated November 7, 2019, is hereby VACATED, with a VERDICT to be entered in favor of the Defendant. 9. The Plaintiffs, DANIEL SHELATZ and ALYN SHELATZ, shall take nothing by this action and Defendant, PUNTA GORDA HMA, LLC d/b/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PUNTA GORDA, shall go hence without day. 10. The Court retains jurisdiction of this action to enter such further orders as are proper, including, without limitation, the taxation of attomey's fees and costs. DONE AND ORDERED , Nita Serrano Page |4 off 4 Christopher David Gray , , Hunter Higdon , , Donna Tisch , , Hunter Alston Higdon , , Scott L. Terry , , Page [5 of 5