What began as an ordinary dental appointment became a life-altering tragedy in a Miami strip mall — and a powerful reminder of why storefront safety matters.
“This was a catastrophic automobile incursion/crash into a shopping center / strip mall,” James D. Payer explains.
His client was simply sitting in the dentist’s office lobby, waiting to be called back. Outside, a GMC Envoy SUV was parked head-in toward the building.
The driver attempted to leave — but made a devastating mistake.
“She put it in drive and hit the accelerator. When the vehicle began to move forward she panicked and hit the accelerator instead of the break causing her vehicle to drive across a walkway, thru a wall and directly into the building.”
The SUV barreled straight into the dental office.
“The vehicle struck our client with extreme force and pushed her through an interior wall of the dentist’s office trapping her underneath the SUV. Fire Rescue had to lift the vehicle off of her with a crane on a tow truck.”
The crash occurred at a shopping center located at 6969 Coral Way in Miami, just west of Coral Gables and West Miami, and east of the Palmetto Expressway.
In seconds, a routine errand became a medical emergency — and the start of a complex premises liability case.
Devastating Injuries and a Long Road to Recovery
The impact left James’s client with massive, life-threatening trauma. She spent nearly a week in a coma and close to a month hospitalized.
Her injuries included:
- Traumatic brain injury
- Multiple cervical and thoracic spine fractures
- Flail chest with multiple rib fractures
- Pulmonary contusion and respiratory insufficiency
- Blunt abdominal trauma to the spleen and pancreas
- Bilateral wrist fractures, ankle fracture, and a shattered scapula
- Hemorrhagic shock and traumatic encephalopathy
In total, she endured multiple surgeries and more than two years of physical therapy and rehabilitation.
“The injuries resulted in her hospitalization for nearly 1 month, multiple surgeries and more than 2 years of physical therapy and rehabilitation,” James says. “She sustained the above injuries, pain and suffering, life-long injuries and physical limitations including her inability to return to work as a housekeeper and caretaker.”
The emotional toll extended beyond the physical.
“The emotional pain and suffering for the victim as well as her husband was substantial and required therapy for them to recover.”
Looking Beyond Driver Error: Why This Became a Premises Liability Case
Although the driver admitted fault, James immediately recognized a deeper issue.
“There were three parties involved. We sued: 1) The vehicle owner/operator; 2) The dentist’s office; and 3) the property owner.”
Why? Because the driver carried only $100,000 in insurance — nowhere near enough to cover catastrophic injuries.
“Since the vehicle had limited insurance coverage of $100,000.00 this was primarily a premises liability case that focused on the property owner’s failure to install safety barriers called ‘bollards’ in front of the entire shopping center.”
Some storefronts had bollards. The dental clinic did not.
“They had them in front of some of the stores, but not in front of the dentist’s office. So we argued that if they felt it was important to provide protection for some tenants and their customers why not all of them?”
James and his team moved quickly.
“The first things our team did was to begin our investigation while making sure our client was getting the treatment she needed at the hospital / trauma center.”
They secured surveillance footage, gathered news video from local stations, and documented the scene before changes could be made.
“We quickly put together our team of accident reconstructionist as well as the foremost vehicle incursion expert in the entire country.”
That expert was Rob Reiter, cofounder of the Storefront Safety Council, supported by accident reconstructionist Miles Moss. Their opinions were clear: the crash was foreseeable and preventable.
James points to several critical failures:
- “Installation of bollards in compliance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F3016 is easy and inexpensive.”
- “Nose-in parking layout without proper barriers including bollards is a violation of industry American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) guidelines.”
- “Simply changing the parking layout to ‘parallel parking’ instead of perpendicular ‘head-in parking’ would have been inexpensive and could have prevented this crash.”
- “Miami Dade County Ordinance No. 12-47 requires the placement of protective devices ‘bollards’ to separate head-in parking spaces from storefronts and pedestrian areas.”
Compounding the danger, the property itself was neglected.
“The parking lot and storefront was in complete disrepair as the property owner was in the process of selling the property to make room for a WaWa Gas Station,” James explains. “There were potholes everywhere and some of the bollards that were present in front of other stores were severely rusted and falling over. Simply put the property owner didn’t want to spend any money in upkeep in order to maximize their profit when they sold.”
Overcoming the Defense: Foreseeability, Experts, and Aggressive Litigation
One of the biggest hurdles was proving foreseeability. There were no prior crashes and no formal complaints about missing bollards.
“Yes we did,” James says when asked about this challenge. “Since there were not any prior accidents at the property and no tenants had complained about the lack of bollards or other safety devices.”
The property owner denied responsibility entirely, arguing the center predated local ordinances and placing blame solely on the driver.
James responded with aggressive discovery.
“We aggressively litigated the case (took deposition of all the owners, tenants and the person responsible for the property maintenance). We also leaned heavily on the opinions of our experts.”
Photographs, videos, engineering standards, and Miami-Dade code violations became the backbone of the case.
“The most important evidence was the photographic and video evidence that was used as the basis of the expert opinions and proof of the Miami-Dade code violations.”
Strategically, James also retained top experts early.
“We did this quickly before the defendant(s) could have hired them which is an important strategy of getting the top expert retained before the defendant does.”
The Result: $875,000 Recovered After Extensive Litigation
The claim against the driver resolved quickly for her full $100,000 policy. The property owner made no pre-suit offers, forcing litigation in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court.
After extensive discovery and just before trial, Our Miami personal injury legal team settled the case.
The total recovery: $875,000.
“The total settlement of $875,000.00 helped compensate the victim for her unpaid medical expenses, physical injuries, pain and suffering, loss of income, loss of enjoyment of life, scarring from surgical incisions. It also included $100,000.00 for a loss of consortium claim by her husband.”
Two years after the crash, the settlement finally provided financial stability.
“It helped the client and her husband pay off some medical bills and other bills incurred due to their inability to work for 2 years. It also helped them purchase their own home.”
Why Property Owner Accountability Matters in Miami
James emphasizes that these cases hinge on placing responsibility where it belongs.
“The most important thing to do is establish that the property owner is primarily responsible for the crash or at least maximize their % of responsibility.”
Florida law allows property owners to shift blame to drivers — even after a driver has settled — through what’s known as a Fabre Defendant.
“If a jury awards someone $1,000,000.00 in total damages but they find the motor vehicle driver is 90% responsible… the victim will only recover $100,000.00 from the property owner.”
That’s why James focuses on proving storefront negligence.
“The higher percentage of negligence that the attorney can place on the property owner, the higher the client’s recovery will be.”
Lessons for Victims — and a Message to Property Owners
James offers practical advice for the public:
“Always be careful when you see perpendicular parking into any store or other building you enter that does not have proper safety barriers or bollards for your safety.”
He adds:
“Don’t walk in front of vehicles unless there is a safety barrier or bollards protecting you. Your life could be forever changed if someone makes the simple mistake of putting their vehicle in the wrong gear.”
And if the unthinkable happens:
“Should anyone be the victim of a vehicle incursion accident they or their family/loved ones need to seek immediate medical attention, get a police report and take as many photos as possible of the accident scene and contact Payer Law for assistance.”
For property owners, his message is direct:
“Every property with parking needs to have protective devices to protect their customers from the vehicle traffic and parking. In Miami-Dade county protective barriers are now required on new construction.”
This case underscores what James D. Payer believes in at his core: fast investigation, top experts, aggressive litigation, and holding commercial property owners accountable when preventable dangers are ignored.
As James puts it simply:
“I think we handled this one exactly the way it should have been. The case needed to be and was investigated quickly and the right experts were retained in order to maximize the recovery of our clients.”
