Alec Settle - Vernis & Bowling

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

Verdicts and Dispositions

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)
Civil Litigation
Coverage & Declaratory Judgment Actions
First and Third Party Property and Casualty Claims
General Civil Litigation
General Liability Defense Litigation
Liability Defense
Negligent Security
Premises Liability
Sinkhole Litigation
SIU/Suspicious & Fraudulent Claims
Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Liability
Wrongful Death

Bar & Court Admission

Florida Bar

Education

Graduate:
Mercer University School of Law, Juris Doctorate
Honors: magna cum laude, Brainerd Currie Honor Society, Woodruff Scholar
Undergraduate:
University of South Florida, Bachelor of Arts in Criminology and Psychology
Honors: magna cum laude

Alec Settle is an attorney in the St. Petersburg office of Vernis & Bowling. Alec’s practice is predominately focused on the areas of automobile liability defense, wrongful death, and first- and third-party property and casualty defense.

Alec grew up in New Jersey but moved to Tampa where he attended college. Alec graduated magna cum laude from the University of South Florida with a double major in Criminology and Psychology. From there, Alec attended Mercer University School of Law in Macon, GA. While in law school, Alec focused his attention on developing skills in oral advocacy by participating in the Mercer Advocacy Council and Moot Court. Alec competed in the Herbert Wechsler National Criminal Moot Court Competition in Buffalo, New York and advanced to the quarterfinals in back-to-back years.

After graduating law school magna cum laude and becoming admitted to practice law in Florida, Alec worked as an Assistant Public Defender in Hillsborough County. Alec zealously advocated on behalf of indigent clients who had been accused of committing crimes. During this time, Alec handled a multitude of criminal cases and gained valuable trial experience, even obtaining a mistrial on his first jury trial.

While not practicing law, Alec enjoys spending time with his wife, Leslie. Together they enjoy travelling and going on adventures with Percy, their dog.

Footer