The personal injury bar had a busy week. A nine-figure premises verdict in Florida anchored the headlines, New York's landmark shift to modified comparative fault for auto cases continued to ripple through case strategy discussions, and the federal regulatory front produced at least one ruling that trucking plaintiffs' counsel will want to track. Below is a practitioner-focused read of the developments that matter.
$644 Million Premises Verdict in Florida Staircase Case
An Orange County, Florida jury returned one of the year's largest premises liability verdicts, awarding $644,751,855 against the owners and operators of Park Social, a second-story bar in Winter Park. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants knowingly directed customers down a staircase constructed in 1926 that was too narrow, too steep, lacked grip tape, and had inadequate handrails, and that the resulting fall caused catastrophic injuries.
The defense argued the staircase was an open and obvious condition. The jury rejected that argument, and the award reflects a finding that defendants who actively channel patrons toward a dangerous condition cannot hide behind the doctrine.
Several features of this verdict are worth noting for practitioners. First, the premises' age does not insulate an owner from liability; the argument that the building was "grandfathered" under older codes failed when the plaintiff's engineering expert testified that the staircase fell below the minimum standards in place even at the time of original construction. Second, the evidence that the bar's own layout funneled customers toward the staircase rebutted the assumption of risk argument. Third, a verdict this size in a premises case is a data point for litigants in states where ad damnum rules require or permit specifying economic and non-economic damages separately.
Post-trial briefing is expected. For practitioners watching the appeal, the open-and-obvious holding will be the focal point.
$71 Million Maryland Apartment Fire Verdict
A Prince George's County, Maryland jury awarded $71 million to Godlove Djapa, who suffered catastrophic injuries after jumping from a second-story apartment window to escape a nighttime fire at the Lilly Garden complex in Lanham. Court filings indicate that the May 2022 fire spread in part because the building had no functioning sprinklers and no audible fire alarm.
The case sits at the intersection of premises liability and negligence per se. Maryland's fire code requires operable alarms and, depending on occupancy classification, sprinkler systems. When a code violation directly contributes to a plaintiff's injuries, negligence per se eliminates the reasonableness inquiry on the breach element. The plaintiff still must prove causation, but the $71 million verdict suggests the jury found the causal link between the code violations and the severity of his injuries to be clear.
For PI practitioners, the key takeaway is the value of a thorough fire marshal investigation record, building inspection history, and management's prior knowledge of equipment failures. Each of those documents tells the story of a dangerous condition that was known, reported, and unaddressed.
New York's Modified Comparative Fault Rule: Summer Check-In
Governor Kathy Hochul signed New York's FY27 state budget on May 27, 2026, converting New York from a pure comparative negligence state to a modified comparative negligence standard for motor vehicle accident cases. Plaintiffs found more than 50 percent at fault are barred from recovery.
As the first full summer under the new rule plays out, plaintiff firms are reporting material changes in early investigation and demand strategy. In pure comparative fault, a plaintiff who was texting and ran a red light could still recover something if the defendant was also negligent; that is no longer true if the plaintiff's fault exceeds 50 percent. Insurers and defense firms are already using this change as leverage in early-stage negotiations, flagging contributory conduct arguments more aggressively at the demand stage rather than waiting for summary judgment.
The rule change also affects case selection. PI firms that historically took marginal auto cases in New York, relying on pure comparative fault to preserve some recovery, are recalibrating their intake criteria. The plaintiff's conduct is now genuinely dispositive if it crosses the 50 percent threshold, so early comparative-fault analysis is becoming a standard intake step.
The reform does not apply to non-motor vehicle premises cases, product liability claims, or other PI categories. Those remain under pure comparative negligence. For the auto-specific practice implications, see our detailed coverage in auto accident litigation strategy.
South Carolina: Lay Testimony Sufficient for Conscious Pain and Suffering
The South Carolina Court of Appeals issued a 2026 ruling clarifying that lay eyewitness testimony can be sufficient to support a conscious pain and suffering finding without a medical expert, as long as the circumstances make the inference of awareness clear. The court held that when facts in the record support a reasonable inference of consciousness and suffering, the question goes to the jury regardless of whether a physician testified on the point.
The ruling is significant for survival and wrongful death cases where the decedent's period of consciousness before death was brief, making it difficult to obtain meaningful expert testimony about subjective awareness. First responders, bystanders, and family members present at the scene can now carry the evidentiary load in South Carolina when their accounts establish that the plaintiff experienced suffering.
Other jurisdictions split on this question. Some courts require medical expert testimony to establish the level of consciousness necessary for a pain and suffering award in a survival claim; others apply the common-sense inference approach South Carolina adopted. Know your jurisdiction's rule before designing your damages presentation in wrongful death cases. See our resources on wrongful death litigation for related damages structuring guidance.
FMCSA ELD Enforcement: 67 Devices Revoked
The FMCSA has now revoked 67 electronic logging devices since January 2025, including Safe ELD and MYLOGS ELD, which faced a July 7, 2026 compliance deadline. Carriers using revoked devices that have not replaced them are subject to out-of-service orders.
For trucking plaintiffs' counsel, the continuing ELD revocation wave has a practical implication: when a crash involves a carrier that was running a revoked or noncompliant ELD at the time of the incident, the hours-of-service data from that device is potentially unreliable and the carrier may have no compliant contemporaneous record of driver hours. That creates a gap that can support a spoliation motion or, at minimum, undercuts the defense argument that driver hours were within federal limits.
If the defendant carrier cannot produce certified ELD data from an FMCSA-registered device covering the period of the crash, push for the underlying paper log backups and any GPS or fuel card data that can reconstruct driving time independently.
DC Circuit Stays FMCSA Non-Domiciled CDL Rule
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a stay of an FMCSA interim final rule that would have eliminated approximately 200,000 commercial driver licenses held by non-domiciled drivers. The court found FMCSA likely violated federal administrative procedure by issuing the rule without notice-and-comment rulemaking.
During the stay, affected drivers retain their CDLs. For trucking plaintiffs' counsel, the ruling has a nuanced implication: if you are litigating a crash involving a driver whose CDL status is tied to this rule, the driver's licensing remains valid during the stay period. Negligent hiring and entrustment arguments based on CDL invalidity would need to account for the stay's existence.
The underlying litigation continues, and the procedural posture could change. Monitor this case on the D.C. Circuit docket for further developments.
Federal Minimum Insurance: Still Stalled
Legislation to update the federal minimum insurance requirement for commercial trucks beyond the $750,000 floor set in 1980 remains stalled in Congress. Industry groups have opposed increases citing insurer capacity concerns, while plaintiff advocates and safety researchers argue the existing minimum is inadequate to compensate serious truck crash injuries. The stalemate is now entering its fifth consecutive legislative year with no clear path to enactment. Practitioners litigating trucking cases where the carrier carried only minimum limits should continue to look upstream to the shipper, broker, and manufacturer for additional coverage sources. For the full map on trucking litigation coverage issues, see our practice resources.