Florida Verdicts

Find out about the most important recent Florida cases, selected by VerdictSearch editors. Coverage includes Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Pinellas counties. Subscribe to VerdictSearch Florida for access to all Florida verdictsPricing Options

Cop alleged store failed to warn him that customer was violent

Amount:

$152,200

Type:

Verdict-Plaintiff

State:

Florida

Venue:

Miami-Dade County

Court:

Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, 11th

Injury Type(s):

arm; knee-laceration; other-sutures; other-laceration; other-puncture wound; shoulder; epidermis-bite mark; mental/psychological-emotional distress

Case Type:

Gross Negligence; Worker/Workplace Negligence; Intentional Torts – Assault and Battery

Case Name:

Carlos Acosta v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Jamelia Diana Rabsatt,
No. 07-14687 CA 24

Date:

February 7, 2014

Parties

Plaintiff(s):

Carlos Acosta (Male, 48 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Alex Alvarez;
The Alvarez Law Firm;
Coral Gables,
FL,
for
Carlos Acosta ■ Lisa A. Cabera;
The Alvarez Law Firm;
Coral Gables,
FL,
for
Carlos Acosta

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Roger Khouri;
M.D.;
Orthopedic Surgery;
Miami,
FL called by
Alex Alvarez, Lisa A. Cabera ■ Carlos Azar;
M.D.;
Hand Surgery;
Miami,
FL called by
Alex Alvarez, Lisa A. Cabera

Defendant(s):

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 

Jamelia Diana Rabsatt

Defense Attorney(s):

David M. Tarlow;
Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.;
Fort Lauderdale,
FL,
for
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. ■ None reported;

for
Jamelia Diana Rabsatt ■ Scott A. Boyer;
Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.;
Fort Lauderdale,
FL,
for
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Insurer(s):

Self-insured for Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Facts:

On May 16, 2006, plaintiff Carlos Acosta, 48, a police officer, responded to a report of a disruptive customer at a Wal-Mart store in Miami. Acosta claimed when he arrived at the store he encountered Jamelia Diana Rabsatt in a violent and agitated state wielding a knife. Acosta discharged his Taser weapon into Rabsatt’s body but Rabsatt managed to injure Acosta’s left hand and left knee with the knife and bite his right shoulder before she was subdued. Acosta sued Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for negligence and gross negligence. He also sued Rabsatt for assault and battery. Rabsatt did not answer the complaint and a judgment of liability was entered against her. Acosta’s counsel claimed that after Rabsatt entered the Wal-Mart requesting to purchase a gun and bullets, her behavior quickly changed from rude to disruptive to violent. They claimed that Rabsatt had a violent encounter with an employee in which she threw a basketball at the employee. They also claimed that she threw another customer’s radio on the ground when she was told the store did not sell guns. Acosta’s counsel claimed that Wal-Mart managers were called to assist instead of calling the police immediately when informed of Rabsatt’s violent behavior. They claimed that while one manager called the police, another manager who was aware of Rabsatt’s violent behavior took Rabsatt over to a display of knives. They claimed the manager opened the locked display, took out a knife, and handed it to Rabsatt. They further claimed that once in possession of the knife, Rabsatt threatened and attempted to attack the Wal-Mart employee who had told her the store did not sell guns. Acosta’s counsel claimed that Wal-Mart failed to warn Acosta that Rabsatt appeared to be under the influence of drugs. They claimed that during the struggle between Acosta and Rabsatt, she was able to get his holster unlocked. They claimed that some Wal-Mart customers and employees had to jump in and help Acosta until other officers arrived. Several officers had to hold Rabsatt down and were finally able to handcuff and arrest her. Acosta’s counsel claimed that Wal-Mart should have known that Rabsatt was dangerous and violent because of the violent behavior she displayed prior to being given the knife. They further claimed that had Wal-Mart not armed Rabsatt with a knife, Acosta would not have been injured in the attempt to disarm her. They claimed that under Florida law, irrespective of Acosta’s status as a police officer, the owner of the store’s premises (Wal-Mart) owed him the same duty of care as it owes a regular customer. Defense counsel argued that the Wal-Mart employees could not have foreseen the events that occurred after Rabsatt was given the knife. They argued that Rabsatt seemed to be just a rude customer prior to the knife incident. They also argued that Acosta was comparatively negligent because despite being a trained police officer, he did not wait for backup when he encountered Rabsatt and proceeded immediately to attempt to disarm Rabsatt. They further argued that Acosta was aware that he had five seconds between tasering Rabsatt and handcuffing her, during which time she would remain stunned. They argued that Acosta failed to utilize the five seconds to cuff or secure Rabsatt and was injured as a result.

Injury:

Acosta sustained lacerations to his left hand and left knee and a bite to his right shoulder. He was taken to a local emergency room and had stitches for his hand and knee wounds. He also had wound care for the bite and was discharged. Acosta claimed he suffered emotional distress and psychological injuries as a result of the incident. He retired from the police force one year after the incident. He claimed his psychological injuries caused him to retire five to six years earlier than he had planned. He claimed he could no longer make the judgment calls required of him as a police officer as a result of the Wal-Mart incident. Acosta sought to recover damages for lost earnings, past medical expenses, and past and future pain and suffering. He also sought to recover punitive damages. Acosta’s counsel argued that punitive damages were warranted because one of Wal-Mart’s managers knowingly armed a violent customer with a knife. Defense counsel argued that Acosta fully healed from all of his physical wounds and that he was going to retire at the time he did regardless of the Wal-Mart incident. They further argued that Acosta was physically and psychologically fit to perform his job as a police officer without restrictions. They further argued that the incident did not affect his psychological well-being.

Result:

The jury found that Wal-Mart was 65 percent negligent and Acosta 35 percent negligent. It determined that Acosta’s compensatory damages totaled $2,200, for past medical expenses. It also found that Wal-Mart was grossly negligent and that punitive damages were warranted. It determined that Acosta’s punitive damages totaled $150,000, bringing the total award was $152,200. Because of comparative negligence, the net award was $151,430. The reduction in the award for comparative liability was applied to the compensatory damages. The punitive damages award was not reduced by comparative fault because of the intentional tort of gross negligence.

Carlos Acosta: $2,200 Personal Injury: Past Medical Cost: $150,000 Personal Injury: Punitive Exemplary Damages

Actual Award:

$151,430

Trial Information:

Judge:

Ellen L. Leesfield

Trial Length:

4
 days

Trial Deliberations:

3
 hours

Editor’s Comment:

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel. Defense counsel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.