Slip-and-Fall Verdict: Basma Ettalhy Wins $234K
Table of Contents
Case Background
This case centered on a slip-and-fall accident at MAU Miami, a restaurant located at 3252 Northeast 1st Avenue in Miami. On May 19, 2022, Basma Ettalhy entered the premises as a customer. According to her lawsuit, she slipped on a slippery substance left on the floor, which she claimed the restaurant staff had failed to clean or warn patrons about.
Ettalhy filed her complaint on March 13, 2023, seeking damages for her injuries, pain, medical costs, and loss of income. MAU Miami denied her allegations and argued that the restaurant had been reasonably safe. The case went to trial before a jury in July 2025, resulting in a verdict for the Plaintiff.
Cause
Ettalhy alleged negligence on the part of MAU Miami. She stated that the restaurant, through its employees, failed to maintain the floor in a reasonably safe condition. She argued that the business either knew or should have known about the spill and should have warned her or cleaned it before she fell.
Injury
The fall allegedly caused injuries to Ettalhy’s body. She said she endured lasting pain, physical handicap, aggravation of pre-existing conditions, and a reduced ability to live a normal life.
Damages
Ettalhy claimed her injuries forced her to incur medical bills, lose wages, and suffer ongoing physical and emotional challenges. The jury later awarded her both past and future medical expenses, along with compensation for pain and suffering, disability, and mental anguish.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Plaintiff’s Side
Ettalhy’s attorneys argued that MAU Miami bore full responsibility for keeping its restaurant safe for customers. They told the jury that the business had exclusive control of the premises and had failed its legal duty to warn or protect against the hazard.
They emphasized that the restaurant’s negligence caused Ettalhy’s injuries, which led to lasting harm, medical treatments, and financial losses. According to them, Ettalhy was not at fault because she had no way of knowing about the danger.
Defense’s Side
MAU Miami flatly denied the claims. Its attorneys insisted there was no dangerous condition inside the restaurant that day. They argued that the restaurant had kept its floor safe and that Ettalhy’s injury did not stem from any negligence on their part.
The defense raised several affirmative defenses. They claimed that Ettalhy’s own negligence, or the negligence of third parties, had caused her fall. They suggested she failed to mitigate her damages and hinted that her lawsuit was retaliatory. In one allegation, the defense said she had dropped her phone in the restaurant and demanded that management replace it, threatening to sue if they did not comply.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Basma Ettalhy
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): William C. Ruggier
· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Ankeet Amrish Choxi
Defendant(s): MAU Miami, LLC
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Michael J. Reppas | Alexander Karantzalis
Claims
Ettalhy’s claim rested on negligence. She said the restaurant either created or allowed the hazard to remain, making the premises unsafe. She also stressed that MAU Miami owed her a non-delegable duty to maintain a safe environment and that the business failed to live up to this responsibility.
Defense
The defense countered that no hazardous condition existed and that the restaurant’s floor had been clean and safe. They maintained that Ettalhy herself caused or contributed to her injuries, that third parties may have been involved, and that her financial damages were overstated or already covered.
The defense further portrayed the lawsuit as retaliatory, arguing that it stemmed from a dispute over Ettalhy’s phone rather than an actual injury.
Jury Verdict
After hearing the evidence and deliberating, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, Basma Ettalhy on July 10, 2025. However, the jury also found that the Plaintiff, Basma Ettalhy, was negligent, and her negligence was a legal cause of her injury. The jury apportioned the fault as 40% to the Defendant and 60% to the Plaintiff. The jury found that the Defendant, MAU MIAMI, LLC, did have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.
The jury calculated damages:
Past medical expenses: $25,879
Future medical expenses: $136,800
Pain, suffering, and related damages (past and future): $ 3750 and $68,400 respectively.
Total damages awarded: $234,829
Court Documents