Articles Posted in Personal Injury Case Law

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

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

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 →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a Florida personal injury case discussing the doctrine of comparative negligence as it pertains to allegations involving an intentional tort. Ultimately, the court concluded that a court is prohibited from reducing a plaintiff’s damages based on their own negligent actions if the defendant was found liable for an intentional tort.

Intentional Torts Versus Claims of Negligence

A tort is a wrong act that may result in civil liability. Most torts are the result of the defendant’s negligence; however, tort claims can also be based on a defendant’s intentional act. For example, the claim of fraudulent concealment is an intentional tort. One thing that Florida personal injury plaintiffs should keep in mind is that insurance contracts generally do not cover intentional torts. Thus, even if a plaintiff is successful in a Florida intentional tort claim, the defendant may not have the ability to fully compensate the plaintiff. In this regard, negligence claims may be preferred.

The Facts of the Case

The court’s discussion of the underlying facts of the case was brief; however, the case dealt with a plaintiff’s claim against a tobacco manufacturer — precisely, the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant manufacturer fraudulently concealed harmful effects of their products. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, but also determined that the plaintiff was partially responsible for her injuries, as she was the one who decided to smoke.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A recent opinion by a Florida appellate court considered whether a case was properly dismissed after the plaintiff substituted the defendant’s estate after the defendant’s death. The plaintiff initially filed a complaint naming a man as the defendant; however, the plaintiff later learned that the man had died. The case deals with how a plaintiff must proceed in the event that they need to substitute a party in a Florida personal injury case.

Under Rule 1.260(a)(1), if a defendant dies and the plaintiff’s claim can continue, the defendant may be substituted for an appropriate party. According to the rule, a motion to substitute must be made within 90 days of the suggestion of death on the record in court. Failure to file a motion to substitute within 90 days will result in a dismissal of the claim against the deceased party.

Here, after the plaintiff learned the defendant had died the plaintiff filed a suggestion of death and a motion to substitute the man’s estate as a party. However, at that time the deceased defendant’s estate had not been officially opened. The attorney appointed to the estate defended the case for over two years. However, the estate later filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff did not adequately substitute the estate as a defendant because the estate had not been opened before the plaintiff filed the motion to substitute. The trial court dismissed the case, and the plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Recently, the state’s supreme court issued a written opinion in a Florida personal injury case discussing an interesting aspect of Florida law that allows for an accident victim to hold the owners of dangerous instrumentalities liable for their injuries under certain circumstances. This application of the vicarious liability doctrine is somewhat unique to Florida and is important for Florida injury victims to understand, as it may provide an additional means of recovery.

Vicarious Liability and Dangerous Instrumentalities

Under Florida law, the owners of dangerous instrumentalities can be held vicariously liable for any injuries that are caused by the instrumentality regardless of another’s fault in bringing about the accident. Courts consider several factors when determining if something is a dangerous instrumentality, including:

  • whether the instrumentality is a motor vehicle;
  • whether the instrumentality is used near the public;
  • whether the dangers presented by the instrumentality are unique; and
  • how the legislature has chosen to regulate the instrumentality.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a Florida personal injury case requiring the court to discuss the state’s medical malpractice pre-suit requirement and whether the plaintiff’s case was required to comply with that requirement. Ultimately, the court determined that the defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff’s case sounded in medical malpractice, and thus the plaintiff did not need to comply with the pre-suit requirements.Florida’s Pre-Suit Notice Requirement

Under Florida Statute section 766.106(2)(a), prospective medical malpractice plaintiffs must provide notice to those whom they plan to name as defendants. This notice must contain certain information, such as a list of all known health care providers seen by the plaintiff in the past two years and copies of the plaintiff’s medical records. In addition, the plaintiff must obtain an expert affidavit indicating that the plaintiff’s claims have merit.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in this case was a resident at the defendant psychiatric facility. During his stay, another resident removed a metal handrail from the wall, beating the plaintiff in the head and face with the rail. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the facility, arguing that it breached its duty to provide security and train staff on how to recognize and handle emergency situations.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a Florida premises liability lawsuit requiring the court to determine if the lower court was correct to grant the defendant hardware store’s motion for summary judgement. The court ultimately concluded that each of the plaintiff’s two theories was sufficiently supported by the evidence such that they should proceed toward trial. Thus, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiff’s case.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was shopping at the defendant hardware store when an object fell from a shelf behind him and struck him behind the knee. The plaintiff later filed a two-count personal injury lawsuit against the store.

The plaintiff testified that he did not see the item before it struck him. However, he could see it out of the corner of his eye as it was falling from the shelf. After the accident, the plaintiff testified that a store employee showed the plaintiff a trailer hitch and told him that it was the object that had struck him. A representative for the hardware store testified that large, heavy items are not stored on the upper shelves; however, the plaintiff claimed to have seen other trailer hitches up on the top shelf immediately after the incident.

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