Kenneth E. Amos, Jr - Vernis & Bowling

Kenneth E. Amos, Jr, Esq.
Managing Attorney
Vernis & Bowling of St. Petersburg, P.A. 696 1st Avenue N., 1st Floor St Petersburg, FL 33701
Phone: (727) 443-3377
Email: KAmos@Florida-Law.com
Fax: (727) 443-6828
Website: www.national-law.com
V-Card Email LinkedIn

Verdicts and Dispositions

Rainone v. Organ
Kenneth Amos and Brandt Carlson (St. Petersburg, FL) (Automobile Liability) had a defense positive result at a jury trial held September 2023 in Hillsborough County Florida, against the largest plaintiff’s firm in the country. The Plaintiff was a 22-year-old female (and sympathetically 9 months pregnant at the time of trial), who complained of injuries to her neck and back stemming from a rear-end automobile accident on November 12, 2019. At trial, Plaintiff requested more than $6,000,000.00 in damages for past and future medical care, as well as for pain and suffering. Multiple treating providers and experts testified live at trial. After deliberations, the jury found the Plaintiff comparatively at fault for the subject accident and only awarded Plaintiff a total of $86,938.74 in damages (which was only 1.45% of their requested damages). The jury specifically found that the Plaintiff had not sustained a permanent injury, and did not award Plaintiff any amounts for future medical care or past or future pain and suffering.
Blaustein, Howard v. Michael Patton and Sarasota Site Services LLC
Kenneth Amos and Miles Hickman (St. Petersburg, FL) (Automobile Liability) obtained a verdict favorable for the Defense in Sarasota County Circuit Court on Wednesday, March 9, 2022. Attorney Jaret Helinger was also fundamental in the preparation and presentation of the evidence at trial.

The lawsuit involved an incident on I-75 in Venice, Florida, whereas the Plaintiff testified that he was following the Defendant’s vehicle when three large pieces of plywood came out of the Defendant’s truck bed and struck the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Prior to the start of the trial, the Defense admitted liability and as such, the trial focused on injury causation and damages.

The crux of the Plaintiff’s claim for injuries was an injury to his right ulnar nerve, which is located at the elbow and signals into the right two digits of the hand. At trial, the Plaintiff also claimed injuries to his back and neck as a result of the incident.

Following the subject incident, the Plaintiff underwent a reversion decompression and submuscular transportation surgery as it related to his right ulnar nerve. The surgery left significant scarring to the Plaintiff’s right arm. At trial, the Plaintiff testified that as a result of the accident, he was no longer able to play golf or help his wife with the chores around the house. The Plaintiff’s total medical bills that were presented to the jury was $38,151.22 with $10,000.00 in Personal Injury Protection deductions that were also presented to the jury.

The Defense’s theme revolved around the inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s mechanism of injury, i.e. how the Plaintiff injured his ulnar nerve. These inconsistencies were shown by prior testimony, patient intake forms and the Plaintiff’s medical records. It was shown to the jury that throughout the course of litigation, Plaintiff’s narrative of how he injured his elbow within the vehicle changed over time.

On cross examination, the defense questioned the Plaintiff and his treating physicians as it related to the inconsistencies in each of the medical records. The description of how the Plaintiff injured his ulnar nerve was wholly different in the treating physicians’ testimony to the Plaintiff’s testimony himself. The Plaintiff was shown each of the inconsistencies in the medical records and in his patient intake form, of which he denied ever executing the intake form and he testified that each of his five treating physicians must have incorrectly dictated his version of the mechanism of injury. The Plaintiff was also asked to recreate for the jury how he injured his elbow, such to clear up the inconsistencies. The Plaintiff refused.

Additionally, the cross examination of the Plaintiff showed the jury through the medical records and prior testimony, that the Plaintiff continued to golf consistently following the accident.

On closing argument, the Plaintiff’s counsel asked for a total of $534,151.00 in total damages. The Defense then explained on closing that the jury could not find in favor of the Plaintiff’s claim, as the Plaintiff had not met his burden of proving that the accident caused the injury to the ulnar nerve. The defense asked for a zero-dollar verdict in light of the inconsistencies.

The jury deliberated for over three hours and issued a verdict of $90,151.22. The attorneys then determined post-verdict set offs to include $10,991.30. The final award was $79,163.92. While the jury did not find a zero-dollar verdict, the low damages award was a favorable verdict for the defense.
James Coachman, Jr., v. Nancy Gartlan
Kenneth Amos, William Gula, and Ariana Seiler (St. Petersburg, FL) (Automobile Liability) obtained a Defense Verdict in Pasco County Circuit Court. This was this office’s third trial and third defense verdict since August 2021, and second consecutive defense verdict against the same national personal injury firm.

The Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident in Port Richey, FL. Plaintiff, Mr. Coachman, was traveling on US 19 when Defendant Gartlan entered his lane of travel. The front left of Plaintiff’s vehicle came in contact with the rear right of Defendant’s vehicle. Liability was admitted prior to trial. Plaintiff alleged injuries to both shoulders, neck pain, back pain, and a traumatic brain injury. Plaintiff is a member of the well-known Coachman family that has been a prominent family throughout Pinellas County’s history. Plaintiff was represented by the nation’s largest personal injury law firm.

The Defense elicited testimony that showed that Plaintiff had a history of intense physical labor including working on orange groves, working in a packing plant, renovating houses, and maintaining vast areas of land throughout his lifetime. The Defense argued his need for shoulder surgeries was due to his long history of physical labor. Additionally, the Defense elicited testimony of Plaintiff’s prior concussions from 1988 when Plaintiff was injured in a skiing accident, and in 2006 when he fell sixteen feet from a tree. This testimony was then argued to rebut Plaintiff’s claim of a traumatic brain injury from the airbag deployment during the subject accident. It was further shown that Plaintiff had not followed any recommendations from his expert Life Care Planner since 2019, and thus future medical care was not necessary. The inconsistencies throughout Plaintiff’s testimony and his medical records were shown in detail during closing arguments by Mr. Amos.

The Plaintiff asked the jury for damages of approximately $3,400,000.00. After just over one hour of deliberating, the jury issued a total Defense Verdict. It found that there was no negligence by the tortfeasor that was a legal cause of injury to Mr. Coachman. The last offer by the defense before trial was $300,000. Plaintiff’s last offer was $500,000.
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.
Barone, Christine v. Jack R. Schimelfining
Kenneth Amos and Miles Hickman (St. Petersburg, FL) (Premises Liability) obtained a verdict favorable for the Defense in Pinellas County Circuit Court on the afternoon of Tuesday July 27th. This was their office’s first trial in over 15 months since the start of the COVID pandemic.

In the suit, the Plaintiff alleged that she tripped over a box placed by the Defendant in the hallway of a medical office. The Plaintiff was the office administrator at this medical office and the Defendant was an electrical contractor hired to replace a light fixture in the ceiling of a lab room in the building. The hallway where Plaintiff tripped was adjacent to this lab room.

The Defense elicited testimony that showed that Plaintiff was late for work that morning and was in a hurry as she tried to navigate around the “obstacle” on the floor of the hallway. During cross examination, the Defense was able to get the Plaintiff to admit that she did not know whether she actually tripped over the box. It was later shown on direct examination of the Defendant, that in fact, the Plaintiff tripped over her own feet as she navigated around the box. The Defendant, however, admitted on cross examination that he created a hazardous condition by allowing the box to jut out into the hallway from the abutting lab room. While this negative testimony was certainly a hurdle, the Defense was able to navigate around the issues in this case effectively during closing arguments and present a theory of the case that was relatable to the average juror, this included relating to how we are expected to navigate around obstacles everyday of our lives.

Following the close of Plaintiff’s case and chief, the Defense moved for directed verdict. The Defense’s position was that the box was open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous, and thus there was no legal duty of the Defendant. However, the Judge denied the motion based on the Plaintiff’s testimony that she cut through an office space and when she turned the corner, the box was only a few steps in front of her in the hallway. As such, the Judge found that the box was not open and obvious.

As a result of the Plaintiff tripping, she began falling forward, approximately 6 to 8 feet down the hallway, before she ultimately hit an office door frame with her right shoulder/arm. Plaintiff’s injuries included a fractured humerus, which required an open reduction and internal fixation surgery to repair. This surgery put the Plaintiff out of work for approximately 6 weeks. The surgery resulted in permanent hardware left in the Plaintiff’s arm, as well as, scarring to the back of her arm. Plaintiff’s outstanding medical bills and lost wages totaled $73,425.41 and were stipulated to prior to the start of the trial.

While the Plaintiff wished to show that she still had limitations in her right arm, it was pointed out by the Defense during closing arguments that during the course of the trial, the Plaintiff continuously held exhibits up to the jury with her right arm, without any limitations.

The Plaintiff asked the jury for damages of approximately $350,000 to $425,000. After over two hours of deliberating, the jury rendered a verdict which included $133,425.41 of total damages. However, the jury found that the Plaintiff herself was 40% comparatively negligent for causing the trip and fall.

The final award of $80,055.24 was a favorable verdict for the Defense.
Francine Lopez v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company
Kenneth Amos and William Gula (St. Petersburg, FL) (Automobile Liability) obtained a Defense Verdict in Pinellas County Circuit Court.

The plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident in Clearwater. Lopez wanted to go around the vehicle in front of her. She thus drove into a painted oval median between the two lanes. The median has a double-yellow line as a border with shorter hashmarks inside of it. At the same time, another driver was operating a sedan and exiting a nearby parking lot. The driver crossed one lane of travel and attempted to enter the same median so she could make a left turn. The right front of Lopez’s vehicle hit the left front of the sedan. Lopez claimed injuries to her neck and back plus an injury to a hip.

Lopez claimed that the tortfeasor made an improper left turn, but conceded that she went into the median to go around slower traffic. However, she contended that other drivers do this, as well. In closing, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the jury should assign no more than 25 percent liability to Lopez. The defense maintained that Lopez was fully liable for improperly driving into the median.
Lopez sought recovery of $1.3 million in past and future lost earnings. She also sought recovery of past and future medical expenses and damages for her past and future pain and suffering.

The jury issued a Defense Verdict. It found that there was no negligence by the tortfeasor that was a legal cause of injury to Lopez.
Julius, Nolene v. Antonio Dunlap and D&M Delivery Services, LLC
Ken Amos and William Gula (St. Petersburg, FL) (Auto Liability) obtained a Defense Verdict on November 21, 2019. This case involved a sideswipe collision where our Defendant was operating an 18,000 pound box truck and switched lanes into the path of the Plaintiff in the right lane of a three lane road. Liability was contested because at the Plaintiff’s deposition she testified that she was traveling 20 inches behind the box truck when she switched lanes at the same time the box truck switched lanes. Our client testified at trial that he never saw the Plaintiff until it was too late and that she flew by him so fast that it shook his box truck like a windstorm.

The Plaintiff had one prior accident in March 2012 and one subsequent accident two months after our accident tried before the jury. In her deposition, she denied being injured in the prior accident. She admitted in her deposition that the subsequent accident caused her pain to worsen.

At trial, the Plaintiff testified that she was mistaken with the 20 inches travel distance behind our client. She testified that the distance was more like the distance between the witness stand and the jury box. She also testified that she never told her doctors after the first accident that she had neck pain despite her records contradicting her testimony. She testified at trial that her deposition testimony was mistaken when she originally testified that the subsequent accident caused her pain to worsen. She denied at trial that she was injured in the subsequent accident.

It took the jury less than 40 minutes to deliberate and render a zero verdict.
Anthony Osude v. Patricia Cadogan and Paul Schmidt
Ken Amos and William Gula (St. Petersburg, FL) (Auto Liability) obtained a defense verdict in Pinellas County, in the defense of a GEICO insured.

The Plaintiff was represented by a Board Certified Trial Lawyer who has been trying cases in Florida for more than 39 years. The case involved a Plaintiff who was injured in two bicycle accidents within 12 days. Both accidents were brought in the same lawsuit because the Plaintiff argued that damages were impossible to be apportioned between the two accidents. The Plaintiff wanted the jury to award damages to both Defendants pursuant to the indivisible injury rule. Mr. Amos and Mr. Gula represented the driver of the first accident. The client was making a right on red at a busy intersection when the Plaintiff darted out in front of her vehicle on his bicycle. He was transported by EMS to Largo medical Center where he was complaining of back pain. He had a history of prior lumbar surgery to include a fusion at L4-5 fourteen months before the accident. He claimed that the accident caused the need for a second fusion at L3-4 and a refusion at L4-5, resulting in a double fusion in the L3-5 areas of the lumbar spine. The Plaintiff had incurred more than $200k in past medical bills, but chose to board the lien and out of pocket damages for the jury. The defense argued that his need for surgery was due to a long history of spinal stenosis because he had three prior back surgeries before the accidents.

With regard to liability for the first accident, the Defendant testified, and the witnesses testified, that the Defendant was first in line in a series of cars at an intersection exiting the 49th Street judicial center in Clearwater at 140th Avenue. The Defendant was making a right on red while looking at oncoming traffic to her left. She testified that she looked to the right when she approached the crosswalk, and then she inched into the crosswalk and began looking left because pedestrian traffic was clear to her right as far as she could see down 49th Street. Once traffic cleared to her left she took her foot off the brake and instantaneously she hit the Plaintiff after he came out of nowhere and darted in front of her vehicle. The Plaintiff was involved in a second accident 12 days later with similar facts 10 blocks north of the intersection for the first accident. Mr. Amos and Mr. Gula argued that the Plaintiff was never on 49th Street until he cut into the Defendant’s line of travel from an adjacent parking lot when he entered 49th Street to cross the intersection of 140th Avenue. The facts clearly showed that he was late for work and was traveling at a moderate speed for a bicyclist at the time of the impact.

After five days of trial, the Plaintiff asked the jury to award him $581k in damages. The jury returned a verdict for the first accident in the amount of $713.90, finding the Plaintiff 99% negligent and the Defendant 1% negligent. The net award to the Plaintiff will be $7.13 cents, but the Defendant may stipulate to $7.14 cents as a professional courtesy. The jury found zero liability for the co-defendant in the second accident. There is a PFS outstanding.
Araceli Gross v. Government Employees Insurance Company
Ken Amos, Esq. and William Gula, Esq. (St. Petersburg, FL) tried an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim in Pinellas County before Judge Linda Allan. Our firm represented GEICO General Insurance Company.

This case involved a rear end collision. The Plaintiff was robbed at the accident scene where the perpetrator/tortfeasor fled the scene with her cell phone. She was able to testify that she was terrified and shocked from the experience. The perpetrator/tortfeasor was caught about a half mile down the road, where his vehicle came to rest in a small ditch near some bushes. The Plaintiff’s vehicle had a few scratches on the bumper but no damage to the structure. The actual parts replaced for the Plaintiff’s vehicle totaled $35.00. The Plaintiff testified that there was a loud bang and then she exited her vehicle and witnessed the property damage on the tort vehicle.

Shortly after the accident the Plaintiff began to experience “bee like stinging” sensations to her left side of her neck radiating into the left upper extremity down her arm into her wrist. She had $48,000 in past medical bills. She presented evidence that she needed future care in the amount of $184,000 and wanted past and future pain and suffering ranging from $400,000-$500,000. Her total damages presented to the jury were $634,000-$734,000.

After two hours and 45 minutes of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of GEICO in the amount of $5,000 for past medical bills with no future medicals, no permanency and no pain and suffering.
Laird v. Jason Dittman d/b/a CFA at Waters, Inc. and Chick-fil-A, Inc.
Ken Amos and William Gula (St. Petersburg, FL) (Fraud) defended a Tampa, Florida Chick-fil-A restaurant in a case where a Plaintiff was found to have committed fraud upon the court. The Plaintiff filed suit on October 1, 2013, alleging negligence against the restaurant and Chick-fil-A, Inc. The Plaintiff alleged that he tripped and fell over a curb on the property of the restaurant. During the pre suit investigation, it was believed that the Plaintiff actually tripped over his grandson, which caused a fractured elbow and an extensive hospitalization due to complications with pneumonia. When the Defendant responded to the Complaint, it served a sanctions letter pursuant to Fla. Stat. Sect. 57.105 accompanied by a Motion for Sanctions. Both documents included the Defendant’s belief that the grandson caused the fall. The Defendant served interrogatories at the beginning of the lawsuit, and despite the Defendant notifying the Plaintiff that the grandson was present and caused the fall, the Plaintiff continued to deny it and even refused to identify the grandson in the interrogatory responses. After almost two years of heavy litigation, the court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice for Fraud Upon the Court. The case is currently in the attorney’s fees and litigation costs stage, but it recently resulted in the arrest of the Plaintiff for Insurance Fraud More than $100k Fraudulently Presenting a False Statement.

After the case was dismissed, the State of Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Insurance Fraud opened an investigation into the Plaintiff. The St. Petersburg Office of Vernis & Bowling worked closely with detectives by providing them all of its evidence used in the civil fraud action against the Plaintiff. On December 15. 2017, the Plaintiff received an early Christmas present when he was taken into custody for his fraudulent conduct. He has been released on bond but has his first visit with a criminal court judge on January 3, 2018.
Salahutdin v. Smith
Ken Amos and William Gula (St. Petersburg, FL) (Automobile Liability) obtained its second zero verdict in two months in a rear-end collision auto accident. The four day trial was held in Tampa, Hillsborough County before judge Herbert Baumann, Jr. It took the jury one hour to deliberate before returning a zero verdict in favor of a GEICO insured who was accused failing to maintain a safe distance between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and his vehicle, causing a rear-end collision. The Plaintiff put on four medical providers as witnesses to the case for causation and damages. Dr. Paul Zak testified that the Plaintiff had herniated discs from the accident at C5-6 and C6-7, requiring either a double discectomy or a double fusion at the cost of $126,000. He opined that regardless of which surgery she elected they were similar in cost. He also opined that she had future needs for MRI’s and x-rays at the cost of $2,200 for each MRI. He also gave a cost for future trigger point injections at $722 each.

Chiropractor Steven Steller testified that the 28 year old Plaintiff needed chiropractic therapy twice a month at the cost of $500 per month for the next 50 years, totaling $300,000. The Plaintiff had $26k in past medical bills. We had a $10k policy for the client. Total economic damages exceeded $450,000. The Plaintiff left it up to the jury to decide the amounts for past and future pain and suffering.

During the course of the trial, Mr. Amos was able to get Dr. Zak to testify that he was not sure within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that she would need the surgery despite his testimony to the contrary on direct exam. The Plaintiff conveniently telephoned Dr. Zak the Friday before trial to elect to have the surgery. This was introduced into evidence through the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff treated with Chiropractor Steven Steller. Mr. Amos was able to get Dr. Steller to admit that he was treating patients with “bad employees” and that he violated his own standard of care to the Plaintiff. Mr. Amos discovered during cross examination that Dr. Stellar had altered his own records and failed to properly document his prescriptions for the MRI’s.

However, the deciding factor was liability and the fact pattern leading up to the collision. The Plaintiff was 26 years old at the time of the accident and had recently fallen in love with her boyfriend. She worked at a nursery less than a mile from the accident scene. She got off work at 1:00 PM. She was excited to see her new love. It was Saturday afternoon and the weather was beautiful. She was a typical young female excited about her relationship and it was time to decide what they were going to do on that Saturday night. We obtained her cell phone records and discovered that from 1:07 PM until 1:14 PM when the collision occurred that she had engaged in 18 text messages in 7 minutes and 21 seconds. Some of them were group messages. She denied it on the stand and said she only sent two text messages while sitting at the red light before making a left turn and slamming on her brakes when our client rear-ended her. We called an AT&T representative to explain the text records to establish that she lied. We also introduced evidence from our insured who testified that the Plaintiff swerved in front of him and slammed on her brakes, causing the collision. The angle of the impact of the Plaintiff’s tailgate on her SUV supported his testimony. So the theme for the defense was entitled, “Shifting the Blame”. What really happened was not what the Plaintiff was trying to sell the jury. We proved that there were four vehicles involved in the collision. Vehicle number one was stopped in the middle of the intersection for no reason, causing vehicle number 2 to slam on its brakes, causing vehicle 3, the Plaintiff, to slam on her brakes because she was switching lanes while texting and not paying attention to the road ahead of her, which in turn caused our client to hit her. The accident was unavoidable due to her cutting him off while texting and driving. The jury agreed.

Of note was an interesting situation during the course of the trial. Mr. Amos was in the restroom on day three of the trial and a juror walked in and began to laugh behind Mr. Amos’ back. The juror then blurted out, “She does not know what pain is.” Despite knowing that this juror was clearly in favor of the defense and no one else heard the comment, Mr. Amos held his integrity and candor to the Court and our judicial system. He immediately reported it to the judge and the opposing attorneys. We had no alternate juror for this case, so it was either going to be a mistrial or we stipulate to five jurors. Before a decision was made by the parties and the Court, the judge took a considerable amount of time recognizing Mr. Amos’ integrity and candor on the record for disclosing what appeared to be juror misconduct. Obviously, the parties agreed to move forward with five jurors and it proved to be the right thing to do. It was a clean trial and there are no appellate issues that hold weight for the Plaintiff. The defense has a $10k PFS that expired at the beginning of the case and the defense intends to enforce it and seek fees and costs.
Benjamin Press v. NPC International, Inc.
William Gula, Esq., Kory Watson, Esq., and Ken Amos, Esq. (St. Petersburg, FL) (Premises Liability) secured a defense verdict for the largest Pizza Hut franchisee in the world, NPC International, Inc., from a Pasco County, Florida jury. Plaintiff, Benjamin Press, represented by Chase Florin, Esq. and Luca Esposito, Esq. of Florida Roebig, claimed NPC was negligent in failing to maintain and/or warn of a dangerous condition involving a door closer in the front entry way to the restaurant. Plaintiff testified he was struck in the head by the door closer while exiting the restaurant. Plaintiff’s key eyewitness, Duane Scranton, was a former employee who testified that he observed the door closer rattling for weeks before the incident, warned management that it was going to fall and injure a customer, and actually witnessed the Plaintiff get struck in the head by the door closer when it fell as Plaintiff walked through the front door. There were no other eyewitnesses to the incident, and there was no factual dispute that the door closer fell and struck the Plaintiff. A former manager, Michelle Wiseman, and current area supervisor for NPC, Randy Harris, both testified that there were no prior issues with the door closer and there was no report by Duane Scranton to management about the condition of the door closer. Plaintiff’s counsel argued NPC was accountable because there was no dispute the door closer fell and struck the Plaintiff, and NPC admitted fault if its employee knew of a problem with the door closer and failed to lock the door or put up a sign to prevent its use. William Gula, Esq. argued that Duane Scranton was not credible, and Plaintiff’s theory of negligence would place an unreasonable burden on NPC to tighten every screw on its premises every single day. The trial was bifurcated for liability to be tried in phase one, and damages to be tried in phase two. Plaintiff’s alleged damages in the second phase of the trial would have included a cervical fusion and total medical bills in excess of one hundred seventy thousand dollars ($170,000.00).
Kandy Magnotti v. Lakewood Ranch Trampoline Sports Center LLC
Ken Amos and Kory Watson (St. Petersburg, FL) (Premises Liability) obtained a summary judgment in the case Kandy Magnotti v. Lakewood Ranch Trampoline Sports Center LLC d/b/a Jumpin’ Fun Sports and Brett Morrow.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit based on allegations that she was injured after she was struck in the head by a basketball while standing in an observation area of the indoor trampoline sports center. Plaintiff complained the Defendants were negligent in the design and operation of a trampoline basketball dunk pit near an observation area. Plaintiff alleged the safety netting was not high enough to prevent basketballs from bouncing out of the basketball dunk pit area. Plaintiff allegedly suffered a concussion and a cervical spine injury causing numbness and tingling down her right arm, for which she was recommended to undergo a three level anterior discectomy with interbody fusion and plate and screw stabilization.

Prior to entering the trampoline sports center, Plaintiff was required to complete a liability waiver. Defendants produced the electronic waiver printout sheet containing Plaintiff’s birthdate and driver’s license number as evidence of Plaintiff’s acceptance of the terms of the liability waiver prior to her injury. Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she did not recall or remember the liability waiver whatsoever. Plaintiff did not deny accepting the liability waiver agreement. Defendant owner testified to first hand observations of the Plaintiff working through and accepting the liability waiver on a computer kiosk in the lobby of the trampoline sports center. We moved for summary judgment by arguing there was no issue of material fact that Plaintiff accepted the terms of the liability waiver, and that the terms of the liability waiver were clear and unambiguous requiring enforcement as a matter of law. The judge agreed and granted our motion for summary judgment.
Strickland v. May (defense verdict)
Kenneth Amos and William Gula (Gulf Coast/St. Petersburg, FL) (Automobile Liability) obtained a defense verdict despite Defendant admitting fault for the accident. Plaintiff, who was making a claim for personal injuries, which included past medical bills, future medical bills, and pain and suffering, was rear-ended by Defendant at dusk shortly after a rain storm. After conducting a thorough investigation with regard to the liability and causation issues to be presented at trial, the defense learned that Plaintiff had a Restriction A on her driver’s license at the time of the accident, which required her to wear corrective lenses. At trial, Plaintiff was cross-examined with regard to her utilization of corrective lenses while operating a motor vehicle. She testified that she did not understand why the eye doctor documented her records with regard to glare and wearing eye glasses. She denied that the records were a true and accurate statement. Furthermore, she denied that she had to wear corrective lenses while operating a motor vehicle. The jury returned a verdict of no liability on behalf of Defendant after five (5) full days of trial and testimony from twenty (20) witnesses.

Areas Of Practice

Automobile Liability (PIP/PD/BI/UM)
Civil Litigation
Construction and Construction Defect Litigation
Cyber Security & Data Privacy
First and Third Party Property and Casualty Claims
Guardianships and Estates
Hurricane Claims
Intentional Torts
Medical Malpractice
Negligent Security
Premises Liability
Product Liability
Sinkhole Litigation
Trucking
Wrongful Death

Bar & Court Admission

Florida Bar 2004
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Education

Graduate:
Juris Doctor, Stetson University College of Law, 2003
Undergraduate:
BA in Political Science, University of Central Florida, 2000

Kenneth E. Amos, Jr. is the managing attorney for the firm’s St. Petersburg office. He was born in Canton, Ohio and was raised in a small town south of the Pro Football Hall of Fame city. While spending the first twenty-five years of his life in Southeast Ohio, Mr. Amos enjoyed fishing, 4-wheeling, and country living after working long days as an industrial painter. Mr. Amos married his wife of 25 years in 1995, and shortly thereafter the two relocated to Florida where Mr. Amos earned his law degree from Stetson University College of Law in 2003.

While Mr. Amos was in law school, he clerked with a local plaintiff’s attorney for two years and spent his first year of practice in the plantiff’s bar. This experience has prompted Mr. Amos to develop a mentoring program in the St. Petersburg office for law students who are inspiring litigators.

Mr. Amos was first hired as a managing attorney for an insurance defense firm in 2006 where he managed the firm’s St. Petersburg operations. Within months, Mr. Amos was invited to be a managing attorney with a second insurance defense firm where he became a partner in 2008.

Mr. Amos joined Vernis & Bowling in 2011. Mr. Amos has years of trial experience and courtroom experience. In addition to the areas of practice outlined herein, Mr. Amos handles a variety of Medicare and other healthcare lien issues. He also specializes in friendly suits throughout the State of Florida.

Mr. Amos was selected by Super Lawyers Magazine as a 2013 and 2014 Florida Rising Star in the practice area of Insurance Coverage for his work defending sinkhole claims throughout Florida. He is the current President of the Belle Vista Community Association. He enjoys traveling with his family to Ohio where he is a season ticket holder for the Cleveland Browns. In his spare time, he enjoys relaxing on the beach and exercising.

Footer