Clark, Fountain, Littky-Rubin & Whitman

Clark, Fountain, Littky-Rubin & Whitman Florida Personal Injury Attorneys specializing in catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases. There is no fee unless the firm wins their client’s case.

Clark, Fountain, Littky-Rubin & Whitman is dedicated to representing injury victims throughout Florida. This West Palm Beach personal injury law firm has more than 220 years of collective experience and has helped its clients recover over a billion dollars in verdicts and settlements. Many of the firm’s attorneys are Board Certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy and the Florida Bar. The

firm and its attorneys have received distinctions for excellence, such as Best Law Firms by U.S. News, The Best Lawyers in America, and AV Preeminent ratings, among others. Free consultations available. If you would like our newsletter sign up here https://www.clarkfountain.com/contact/

Rules are rulesThis PCA contained an interesting concurrence worth including this week, as a reminder about the importan...
08/27/2026

Rules are rules

This PCA contained an interesting concurrence worth including this week, as a reminder about the importance of complying with a trial court’s pre-trial order.

The plaintiff’s attorney appealed an order requiring him personally to reimburse the defendant $1,500 in attorney’s fees as a sanction arising from his conduct surrounding the pretrial conference. The pretrial order expressly warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions. The defendant filed a motion for sanctions alleging that plaintiff’s counsel had failed to cooperate in complying with the pretrial order, including the requirements for mediation and preparation of the pretrial stipulation, jury instructions, and verdict form.

Rules are rules FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY VOLUME 51 NUMBER 30 CASES FROM THE WEEK OF JULY 31, 2026 ATTORNEY’S WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PRETRIAL ORDER

Mark Clark Secures Significant Confidential Settlement in Defect Seatback Collapse CaseClark Fountain is proud to announ...
08/25/2026

Mark Clark Secures Significant Confidential Settlement in Defect Seatback Collapse Case

Clark Fountain is proud to announce that partner Mark Clark has successfully obtained a significant confidential settlement in a case involving a seatback collapse that rendered his client a paraplegic when the front seat in his pick-up truck collapsed during a rear-end collision.

The force of the impact caused the front seatback to fail and collapse rearward, leading to a rollover that resulted in severe spinal and head injuries.

Following the crash, Clark Fountain launched an extensive investigation to determine how and why the seatback failed. Working with mechanical engineers, metallurgists and biomechanical experts, the firm uncovered a critical defect in the truck’s seatback design. The structure lacked sufficient strength to withstand foreseeable rear end forces, allowing the recline mechanism and internal frame to give way under extreme inertial forces.

Read more:

Clark Fountain is proud to announce that partner Mark Clark has successfully obtained a significant confidential settlement in a case involving a seatback

I do see two sides…The plaintiff filed a premises liability action after slipping and falling inside one of the defendan...
08/20/2026

I do see two sides…

The plaintiff filed a premises liability action after slipping and falling inside one of the defendant’s grocery stores. The plaintiff alleged that a dangerous condition on the floor (a puddle of water that was “maybe 4 feet by 4 feet”) caused the fall and that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. The Publix employee stocking the water shelves testified he didn’t see any water on the floor. There was also evidence that water was leaking from the drain under the bunker.

The defendant successfully moved for summary judgment.

The court noted that its role in reviewing a summary judgment is limited; it cannot weigh evidence, instead only conclude “whether it is so one-sided that the result of any trial is inevitable.”

I do see two sides… FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY VOLUME 51 NUMBER 29 CASES FROM THE WEEK OF JULY 24, 2026 SUMMARY JUDGMENT REVERSED ON CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE—EVIDENCE

Clark Fountain Obtains Significant Confidential Settlement Against Vehicle and Seat Manufacturers in Catastrophic Seat F...
08/20/2026

Clark Fountain Obtains Significant Confidential Settlement Against Vehicle and Seat Manufacturers in Catastrophic Seat Failure Case

Attorneys Don Fountain, Ben Whitman, and Dan Walker of Clark Fountain, alongside co-counsel Drew Ashby, have obtained a significant confidential settlement just weeks before trial in a major automotive product liability case involving both the vehicle manufacturer and the seat manufacturer.

The case centered on a driver who did everything right. The client was properly seated, wearing a seatbelt, and had no fault in the rear-end collision. The crash itself was survivable. The driver who struck the client declined medical treatment at the scene.

But inside the client’s vehicle, the driver’s seat failed.

Instead of maintaining its structure and helping keep the driver safely contained, the seat fractured across several critical components. The failure caused the client to be thrown rearward over the collapsing seatback, resulting in a devastating spinal fracture and immediate paraplegia. After months of serious medical complications, the client ultimately died from the injuries.

Clark Fountain’s investigation, conducted with engineering, vehicle and seat design, accident reconstruction, failure analysis, metallurgy, radiology and biomechanical experts, focused on how a properly restrained driver could suffer such catastrophic injuries in a rear-end crash of this severity.

Palm Beach Gardens, FL – Attorneys Don Fountain, Ben Whitman, and Dan Walker of Clark Fountain, alongside co-counsel Drew Ashby, have obtained a

Hmm, so how long have you had that cough?The plaintiffs filed separate negligence actions after both allegedly contracte...
08/13/2026

Hmm, so how long have you had that cough?

The plaintiffs filed separate negligence actions after both allegedly contracted tuberculosis following meals at the defendant’s restaurant. They alleged that the defendant restaurant owner and the restaurant knew or should have known that one of its servers was suffering from a contagious illness but still allowed him to continue serving customers.

The evidence showed that the server had experienced a persistent, heavy cough and other flu-like symptoms for several months while working at the restaurant. A fellow employee testified that the server was “clearly unhealthy,” complained that he did not feel well, and appeared visibly sick for weeks. She further testified that there were discussions between the server and the restaurant owner concerning his illness. After leaving the restaurant, the server was diagnosed with tuberculosis, and several restaurant employees later tested positive as well. An epidemiologist opined that the plaintiffs likely contracted tuberculosis from the server while dining at the restaurant.

Hmm, so how long have you had that cough? FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY VOLUME 51 NUMBER 28 CASES FROM THE WEEK OF JULY 17, 2026 RESTAURANT PATRON NOT ONLY STATED A

Judge, I cannot tell a lieThe plaintiff filed a premises liability action after slipping on spilled dish soap at a Publi...
08/06/2026

Judge, I cannot tell a lie

The plaintiff filed a premises liability action after slipping on spilled dish soap at a Publix. The surveillance video showed that the plaintiff continued shopping after the fall and even purchased a bottle of champagne before leaving the store. However, she later claimed that the incident caused serious injuries requiring months of medical treatment and sought damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost wages.

During discovery, the plaintiff repeatedly represented that she could no longer lift her young children, bend at the waist, lift groceries, play in a swimming pool, walk for extended periods, or engage in many ordinary daily activities because of her injuries. The surveillance Publix had done on her showed otherwise.

Judge, I cannot tell a lie FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY VOLUME 51 NUMBER 27 CASES FROM THE WEEK OF JULY 10, 2026 FLORIDA SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS THAT FRAUD ON THE

The blame is all yoursThe plaintiff, an employee of an independent contractor hired to install an automatic door at one ...
07/30/2026

The blame is all yours

The plaintiff, an employee of an independent contractor hired to install an automatic door at one of the defendant’s stores, was seriously injured when he received an electrical shock from an improperly grounded junction box and fell from a ladder onto a concrete floor.

The plaintiff had installed similar doors at dozens of Wal-Mart stores. After removing the old door and installing the new one, his final task was to connect the new automatic door to an existing electrical junction box located in a locked room accessible only to Wal-Mart personnel. Before working inside the box, the plaintiff attempted to verify that the electrical wires were safe. When he touched the metal cover of the junction box, he received a powerful electrical shock that threw him from the ladder.

After recovering, the plaintiff discovered that the junction box was not properly grounded, contained uncapped wires, and had not been securely mounted. Both parties’ electrical engineering experts agreed the junction box violated the National Electrical Code and should have been safe to touch if properly maintained.

Following a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant argued on appeal that it owed no duty because the plaintiff was an employee of an independent contractor performing the work he had been hired to do.

The blame is all yours FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY VOLUME 51 NUMBER 26 CASES FROM THE WEEK OF JULY 3, 2026 WAL-MART COULD NOT AVOID LIABILITY UNDER INDEPENDENT

Breach is not causeThe plaintiff filed a negligence action arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Before trial, the de...
07/23/2026

Breach is not cause

The plaintiff filed a negligence action arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Before trial, the defendant admitted that her negligence caused the collision.

Negligence is not “causation,” and the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff a directed a on causation (rarely an appropriate issue for DV).

As such, the court reversed the final judgment and remanded for a new trial.

Breach is not cause FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY VOLUME 51 NUMBER 25 CASES FROM THE WEEK OF JUNE 26, 2026 DIRECTED VERDICT ON CAUSATION REVERSED EVEN THOUGH

The joy of the PCAThe underlying appeal involved a dissolution of marriage judgment. The Fourth District affirmed the us...
07/16/2026

The joy of the PCA

The underlying appeal involved a dissolution of marriage judgment. The Fourth District affirmed the using a simple PCA.

Instead, Judge Klingensmith wrote an extensive concurrence—not to discuss the merits of the parties’ dispute, but to explain why Florida appellate courts should continue using per curiam affirmances (“PCAs”) in appropriate cases.

The concurrence explained that the appeal presented nothing more than the routine application of settled law to a fact-specific record. The issues involved no novel legal question, no conflict in precedent, and no need for clarification of existing law. Under those circumstances, a written opinion would have added words without adding guidance.

Judge Klingensmith emphasized that PCAs perform an important institutional function. By affirming without an opinion, appellate courts avoid creating unnecessary precedent in cases controlled by well-established law. Written opinions–even carefully drafted ones, often become cited for propositions far beyond the facts before the court, gradually expanding or complicating the law where no clarification is actually needed.

The joy of the PCA FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY VOLUME 51 NUMBER 24 CASES FROM THE WEEK OF JUNE 19, 2026 FOURTH DISTRICT ISSUES PER CURIAM AFFIRMANCE (PCA)--

Punitive damage law restoredThe Florida Supreme Court used this decision as an opportunity to articulate and clarify the...
07/09/2026

Punitive damage law restored

The Florida Supreme Court used this decision as an opportunity to articulate and clarify the standard a trial court must apply when deciding whether to permit a party to amend a pleading to assert a claim for punitive damages under section 768.72, Florida Statutes.

The underlying litigation arose out of a contentious dispute involving a defamation arising out of very serious allegations of awful conduct and counterclaims brought by the defendant. Based upon evidence developed during discovery, the Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their pleadings to add claims for punitive damages, which based on the heinousness of the evidence, the trial court granted.

The Fourth District, sitting en banc, reversed. It concluded that before allowing a punitive damages claim, the trial court had to determine whether a reasonable jury, considering all the evidence presented by both sides, could ultimately find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages were warranted. Based on conflict, the Fourth District certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court.

Punitive damage law restored FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY VOLUME 51 NUMBER 23 CASES FROM THE WEEK OF JUNE 12, 2026 FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT WHEN A TRIAL

Address

3601 PGA Boulevard, Suite 300
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
33410

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Clark, Fountain, Littky-Rubin & Whitman posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Featured

Share

Category