Published on:

By

Drowsy driving is a major cause of Florida car accidents. Indeed, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), drowsy driving killed 795 people in 2017 alone. However, because this data relies only on police and hospital reports, traffic safety experts, sleep scientists, and public health organizations all agree that the actual number of deaths caused by drowsy driving is much higher.

The NHTSA has identified several characteristics that are common among drowsy driving accidents. For example, these accidents typically involve vehicles occupied only by the driver and occur in the late night/early morning hours or the midafternoon. They also usually involve one vehicle drifting off the road at a high speed, without the driver making any attempt at avoiding the collision. Needless to say, these accidents are also almost always catastrophic, frequently resulting in serious injury or death.

Perhaps the most common cause of drowsy driving is a motorist’s lack of sleep. Thus, overnight workers are at unusually high risk of falling asleep behind the wheel. There is also evidence that unrecognized sleep disorders cause a significant number of drowsy driving accidents. Also, the ingestion of alcohol or certain medications may also result in a sudden onset of extreme fatigue.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

One might expect that Florida nursing homes recruit some of the best nursing staff available because they care for one of society’s most vulnerable populations. However, given the track record of most Florida nursing homes, that does not seem to be the case. Indeed, it seems as though every few days there is a new report of abuse or neglect at a Florida nursing home.

According to recent estimates by the World Health Organization, nearly two out of three nursing home staff members have reported that they engaged in some type of abuse over the past year. The number of instances involving nursing home neglect is more difficult to determine because residents report such a small percentage of the cases. However, it is estimated that approximately 12% of nursing home residents will suffer from neglect at some point during their stay in a skilled nursing facility.

Of course, Florida nursing homes have a duty to provide a base level of care to their residents. The extent of this duty depends on the individual needs of the resident, but certainly includes assistance with feeding, using the bathroom, taking medications, and following up on developing medical conditions. When staff members neglect to care for a resident, both staff and management may be held liable through a Florida nursing home neglect lawsuit.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Most Florida premises liability cases arise after a guest or customer is injured while on the defendant’s property. These cases generally proceed under the theory that the landowner either failed to warn their guest of a known hazard or did not take sufficient efforts to remedy a dangerous hazard that was on their property.

There are, however, other premises liability theories through which a landowner can be held liable for injuries occurring on their property. For example, under the attractive nuisance doctrine, a landowner can be held responsible for a child’s injuries that occur as a result of a dangerous object, feature, or condition of the defendant’s land that attracted the child onto the property. Notably, under the Florida attractive nuisance doctrine, a landowner can be liable for a child’s injuries even if the child was trespassing at the time of the accident.

What Constitutes an Attractive Nuisance?

There are two ways to establish that an object is an attractive nuisance. Under Florida Statutes section 823.08, lawmakers have enumerated several items that are automatically considered to be attractive nuisances. These items include “abandoned or discarded iceboxes, refrigerators, deep-freeze lockers, clothes washers, clothes dryers.” Also included among these attractive nuisances are any other airtight containers from which the doors have not been removed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As a general rule, Florida landowners owe a duty of care to those whom they invite onto their property. This duty, however, is not without its limits. For example, a landowner will not typically be found liable for injuries that are caused by a hazard that is “open and obvious.” The rationale is that when a hazard is open and obvious, the visitor has equal of the danger as the landowner, and should be able to avoid the hazard.

In a recent Florida slip-and-fall case, however, the court discussed a situation where a landowner may still be liable for a plaintiff’s injuries that were caused by an open and obvious hazard.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff tripped and fell on an uneven section of sidewalk that was within a condominium complex. Evidently, the plaintiff had lived in the complex for 15 years, and regularly passed by the area where she fell. Additionally, the area was marked by management with blue dots to indicate it was an area most in need of repair.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Recovering after a Florida workplace accident can be tricky for several reasons. For one, as a general rule, an injured employee cannot file a Florida personal injury lawsuit against their employer – even if the employer was negligent – because a workers’ compensation claim is an injured employee’s sole remedy in most cases. And while a workers’ compensation claim allows for an injured worker to receive some benefits without establishing that their employer was negligent or at fault for the accident, the amount and duration of Florida workers’ compensation benefits can be limited.

There are several exceptions to the sole-remedy provision. The two main categories of cases in which the sole-remedy provision does not apply are those cases involving a non-employer third-party’s negligence and cases involving injuries to workers in specific industries in which lawmakers have specifically allowed claims against an employer.

The Florida workers’ compensation sole-remedy provision only applies to an employee’s claim against their employer. Thus, if a third-party’s negligence was the cause of the employee’s injuries, the employee will not be precluded from pursuing a Florida personal injury case against that third-party. For example, if an employee’s injury is the result of a defective product, the employee could pursue a Florida product liability claim against the product’s manufacturer.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a Florida personal injury case involving an accident that occurred on the Daytona International Speedway. The case required the court to determine whether the plaintiff was prevented from pursuing a claim against the Speedway based on a release of liability waiver she had signed before the accident. Ultimately, the court concluded that although the waiver was valid and enforceable, it did not cover the specific claim made by the plaintiff.

The Facts of the Case

The court’s recitation of the facts was brief; however, it appeared from the court’s discussion of the facts that the plaintiff was a pit-crew member for one of the racers. Before the plaintiff was allowed onto the racetrack, the Speedway asked that she sign a document that was a release and waiver of liability. By signing the document, the plaintiff agreed that she was aware of the risks involved with standing on the racetrack, and that she agreed not to sue the Speedway if she was injured. The document explicitly stated that it applied to “all acts of negligence.”

According to the court’s opinion, one day the plaintiff was standing in a restricted access area when she was run over by a tow truck that was backing up into the area. Evidently, the tow truck driver was being directed into the area by two employees of the Speedway.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a Florida car accident case requiring the court to determine whether a residential community could be held liable for an accident victim’s injuries. The court’s opinion largely focused on the question of whether the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries. However, the case also serves as a valuable lesson for Florida injury victims.

Proximate Cause in Florida Injury Cases

To establish a claim of liability against a defendant, a plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of their injury. To be sure, proximate cause is a complex legal concept, but boiled down to its essence proximate cause is a question of whether the plaintiff’s injuries were a natural and foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions. In many Florida car accident cases, proximate cause is not contested because the plaintiff’s injuries are the clear result of the defendant’s conduct. However, the case mentioned above presented a unique situation.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s recitation of the facts, the plaintiffs were driving through a residential community when they came across a portion of the road where cars were parked on either side of the street. As the plaintiffs approached the bottleneck, they stopped in the middle of the road to allow an oncoming car to pass through the parked cars. However, as the plaintiffs were stopped, another car rear-ended their vehicle.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The judge plays an extremely important role in any Florida personal injury case. Among the major duties of the judge during a trial is to make all evidentiary rulings. These may come up in a pre-trial motion in limine or throughout trial when a party attempts to elicit or present certain evidence that the opposing party believes is objectionable and should be excluded.

Florida judges are guided in these decisions by the Florida Rules of Evidence, which are quite complex and cover many of the situations that may come up during a trial. Perhaps the most basic rule is stated in Rule 90.402, which explains that “all relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.” Thus, the party attempting to admit evidence must first establish that it is relevant. If that party can do so, then it is up to the opposing party to explain why the evidence is otherwise excludable.

Some of the reasons why relevant evidence may be excluded are that the evidence is based on hearsay testimony, the evidence has not been properly authenticated, or the evidence relates to a privileged matter. One of the most commonly cited rules to keep out relevant evidence is Rule 90.403, which states that “relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

One of the many roles of judges during a Florida personal injury case is to determine what evidence is admitted at trial as well as which evidence the jury will be permitted to consider during its deliberations. To guide a judge’s decision on these critical issues, lawmakers have enacted the Florida Rules of Evidence.

One of the unique aspects of Florida evidentiary law is the lack of what is known as a dead man’s statute. About half of the states have a dead man’s statute, which prohibits an interested party from testifying about a conversation they had with someone who has since died. The idea behind the rule is that because the deceased person is not present to refute the representations made by the interested party, it is difficult to ensure these statements are false or self-serving.

Instead of a dead man’s statute, Florida lawmakers have included section 90.804(2)(e) to help alleviate some of the concerns the dead man’s statute was meant to address. Under section 90.804(2)(e), written or oral statements that were made by a person who is unavailable due to “death or because of then-existing physical or mental illness or infirmity” can be admitted into evidence. These statements are only admissible, however, if the statement relates to the subject matter of the statement made by an adverse party to the deceased. The phrasing of Florida’s rule is confusing. Simply stated, it allows for the statements of the deceased to come into evidence if an adverse party testifies to conversations with the deceased.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a Florida car accident case discussing circumstantial evidence as well as its limits. The case required the court to explain the rule against stacking inferences based on circumstantial evidence.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a minivan that was being driven by a family member. The minivan was traveling over the Buckman Bridge when, about a mile onto the bridge, the driver of the minivan had to bring the vehicle to a stop because there was a ladder in the road.

Apparently, no one saw how the ladder ended up on the road; however, the plaintiff testified that she saw a motorist who had parked his truck parked on the side of the road and was focused on the ladder as though he was trying to retrieve it. As the minivan was stopped on the bridge, a Coca-Cola service vehicle rear-ended the minivan, injuring the plaintiff. The truck driver was never located.

Continue reading →

Contact Information
Plantation Office
8211 W Broward Blvd #460
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: (954) 653-9969
Coral Gables Office
2332 Galiano St, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 259-7100
West Palm Beach Office
777 S Flagler Dr, #800
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 275-1010
Hollywood Office
450 N Park Rd, #803
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: (954) 653-9969

Toll Free: (800) 753-5529 Fax: (954) 653-9979

Copyright © 2014 – 2019, Cecere Santana, PA
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design