Amanda L. Brennan-Patel - Vernis & Bowling

Amanda L. Brennan-Patel, Esq.
Attorney
Vernis & Bowling of St. Petersburg, P.A. 696 1st Avenue N., 1st Floor St Petersburg, FL 33701
Phone: (727) 443-3377
Email: ABrennan-Patel@Florida-Law.com
Fax: (727) 443-6828
Website: www.national-law.com
V-Card Email

Verdicts and Dispositions

Berger, Nicholas v. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (America) and Mauricio Cabada
Amanda Brennan, Esq. and Kory Watson, Esq. (St. Petersburg, FL) (Negligence) obtained an order granting Final Summary Judgment on behalf of Defendant Mauricio Cabada in an action for gross negligence. The cause of action arose from a golf cart accident that occurred on May 22, 2019, when Defendant Cabada reversed a golf cart and struck Nicholas Berger in the leg while both were in the course of employment with Ritchie Brothers Auctioneers.

Prior to initiating this lawsuit against Defendant Ritchie Brothers Auctioneers and Defendant Cabada, Plaintiff accepted workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries. Under Florida’s workers’ compensation statute, workers’ compensation benefits are the only means of recovery against a co-employee unless the co-employee acted with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence.

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Cabada acted with gross negligence when he violently struck Plaintiff with the golf cart after he abruptly reversed the cart without first checking his surroundings and determining whether Plaintiff was clear of the rear of the cart. The only evidence in the record were deposition transcripts of Plaintiff and Defendant Cabada. It is undisputed that Defendant Cabada was driving Plaintiff to an auction lot at the time of the accident and that Plaintiff was seated behind Defendant Cabada facing the rear of the cart. Plaintiff testified only that when he arrived at his destination, the cart stopped, and he hopped off. Defendant Cabada testified that as soon as he stopped the cart, another passenger began screaming because a truck was reversing towards the golf cart. Defendant Cabada looked behind the cart, thought he saw Plaintiff in the cart, told the passengers to remain seated, and then put the cart in reverse. The cart did not have rearview mirrors, but it did have a loud reverse alarm to alert anyone within the cart’s path. Notwithstanding the allegations in his Complaint, Plaintiff’s testimony was silent as to Defendant Cabada’s actions leading to the accident.

To establish gross negligence, a plaintiff must show (1) a composite of circumstances, which together, constitute an imminent or clear and present danger amounting to more than a normal and usual peril, (2) an awareness of such danger, and (3) a conscious, voluntary act or omission that occurs in a manner evincing a conscious disregard of consequences.

In the Motion for Final Summary Judgment, we argued that the record lacked any evidence of gross negligence. To the contrary, Defendant’s undisputed testimony established that he acted with due care under the circumstances. The Honorable Dana Moore Tenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Polk County agreed. According to Judge Moore, no reasonable jury could find that Defendant Cabada was grossly negligent.
Dale Hunt v. P.J. Rodriguez d/b/a Chick-Fil-A Naples Center
Ken Amos and Kory Watson (St. Petersburg, FL) (Premises Liability) obtained a directed verdict on September 15, 2021 for Defendant P.J. Rodriguez d/b/a Chick-Fil-A Naples Center (“Defendant”) on the third day of a jury trial in a premises liability case before the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in Collier County Florida before Judge Elizabeth V. Krier. Lori Conklin, Esq., Alec Settle, Esq., Amanda Brennan, Esq., and Alanna Heelan, FRP were also fundamental in the preparation of the case for trial, as well as motion practice before and during trial.

The incident occurred on October 23, 2014, when the Plaintiff was allegedly struck on the head by an aluminum restroom partition headrail which spanned from a wall on one side of the men’s restroom stall to the partition divider near the entry door to the men’s restroom stall. The headrail, which weighed 2.6 pounds, allegedly fell on the side closest to the door once the Plaintiff entered the stall and closed the door–hitting him on top of the head. Plaintiff alleged head, neck, and lower back injury from the incident, including surgery on the neck and the lower back.

Discovery revealed the restroom partition headrail which allegedly fell was installed approximately 6 months before the date of loss by Horizon Construction Company (“Horizon”) with materials, parts, and instructions provided by Clayton Fixture Company (“Clayton”). On August 10, 2017, a proposal for settlement was filed by Defendant to Plaintiff in the amount of $22,500. Horizon and Clayton were subsequently named as Co-Defendants in the case. The case was arbitrated on July 21, 2020, with an adverse decision to Defendant, Horizon, and Clayton rendered on September 21, 2020. A judgment was entered in accordance with the arbitration award as to Clayton. Defendant and Horizon moved for a trial de novo. Horizon reached a confidential settlement with Plaintiff before trial.

Prior to trial, Plaintiff’s expert, Chris Zimmerman, testified in his discovery deposition that Defendant failed to maintain the men’s restroom stall partition in a reasonably safe condition because the aluminum headrail allegedly fell and struck the Plaintiff. Mr. Zimmerman did not offer any opinions as to what PJ Rodriguez specifically failed to do or should have done to maintain the fixed restroom partition headrail structure during the period of approximately six months before its alleged failure. Mr. Zimmerman did not suggest that the screws should have been tightened or inspected with any specific frequency, or that any parts needed to be inspected, replaced, or lubricated over time. Mr. Zimmerman provided an opinion on an ultimate issue in the case, that Defendant failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, purportedly in violation of Florida building codes, without any facts or data, or any reliable methodology. Mr. Zimmerman’s opinion was that the restroom partition headrail fell, and because it fell, Defendant must not have maintained it properly. Mr. Zimmerman did not provide a methodology for his opinion as to Defendant’s failure to maintain the restroom partition. Defendant filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Chris Zimmerman specifically with regard to these opinions. In response, Plaintiff withdrew expert witness Chris Zimmerman before trial. Plaintiff also withdrew the low back injury claim before trial.

At trial, Plaintiff and his wife both testified that they frequented the Chick-Fil-A restaurant 2-3 times per month in the 6 months leading up to the incident, and they never observed, experienced, or heard of any problems in the men’s or women’s restrooms. There was no evidence of any complaints by customers, or employees of Defendant, regarding any problems or concerns with the restroom stall partitions prior to the incident. Plaintiff read the testimony of a former employee at the restaurant who testified that after the incident, he believed he found one of the two screws securing the restroom partition headrail where it allegedly fell, and that other screws were thereafter discovered to be loose.

After two full days of trial and the Plaintiff rested, the Court found Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the elements of his case in chief and impermissibly attempted to prove the elements of his case through the stacking of inferences. Specifically, the Court held Plaintiff failed to present any evidence establishing actual or constructive knowledge on behalf of Defendant of any dangerous condition, or any failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, as to present an issue of fact for the jury on breach of Defendant’s duty of care. The Court found the Plaintiff’s following evidence was not instructive as to the condition before or at the time of the incident:
1. An employee of Defendant identified loose screws in the women’s restroom after the incident;
2. One of two screws were found on the men’s restroom floor after the incident;
3. An employee of Defendant found other screws loose in the men’s restroom on the subject “rod” after the incident;
4. Plaintiff visited the subject premises approximately three months after the incident and took photographs purporting to show a hole missing a screw;
5. An employee of Defendant inspected the women’s restroom sometime following the incident in the men’s restroom and “shook” the restroom to determine whether anything was “loose”; and
6. An employee of Defendant testified that he determined after the incident some of the original screws used in the construction were loose.
Accordingly, the Court directed a verdict for the Defendant finding there was no evidence that Defendant breached the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition or failed to warn or make safe conditions Defendant knew of or should have known of through reasonable care. Defendant is considering options including pursuit of attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the defense of the case over 4 years after the filing of the proposal for settlement.

Areas Of Practice

Automobile Liability (PIP/PD/BI/UM)
General Liability Defense Litigation
Premises Liability

Bar & Court Admission

Florida Bar
Maryland Bar

Education

Graduate:
American University Washington College of Law, Juris Doctor
Honors: Cum Laude, Dean’s List Scholarship, Capital Scholar Merit Award, Outstanding Pro Bono Honors
Undergraduate:
University of South Florida, Bachelor of Arts in Psychology Honors

Publications

Amanda Brennan, Comment, Playing Between the Joints: Where the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Meets Title VII, 68 AM. U. L. Rev. 569 (2018)

Amanda grew up in Tampa, Florida. While there she received a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology Honors from the University of South Florida. After graduation, Amanda served as a sexual assault victim advocate for several years, which inspired her to attend law school. She received her Juris Doctorate degree from American University Washington College of Law. While in law school, Amanda served as the Senior Articles Editor for the American University Law Review as well as a Marshal-Brennan Constitutional Law Fellow with the Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project. She graduated Cum Laude and in the top 15% of her class.

Since joining Vernis & Bowling, Amanda’s practice area has focused on insurance defense and general civil litigation. She brings her passion for advocacy to every case and enjoys helping her clients through all aspects of litigation.

In her free time, Amanda enjoys practicing archery, painting, traveling, and camping.

Footer