Articles Posted in Personal Injury Case Law

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in a medical malpractice case in which the plaintiff claimed that the defendant negligently left a four-inch piece of drainage tube in his body after a surgery. The court ultimately held that the statute stating that a foreign body left inside a patient’s body is prima facie evidence of negligence should apply to the case, even though the plaintiff knew exactly who left the tube in him.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was admitted into the defendant hospital for a colon resection surgery. During the surgery, several feet of drainage tube were inserted into his body to help his body eliminate fluids after the surgery. A few days after the surgery, a nurse came to remove the tubing before the plaintiff was discharged. She pulled the tube out, as is normal practice, and the plaintiff was sent home.

A few months later, the plaintiff noticed pain in the area of where the tubing had been, and it was discovered that there were approximately four inches of tube still in his body. A subsequent surgery was required to remove the tubing. The plaintiff then filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the hospital where the original surgery and tube-removal took place.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, a Florida appellate court issued a written opinion in a slip-and-fall case, reversing the lower court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The case required the court determine if a plaintiff can still recover for injuries under a premises liability theory where the hazard that caused the plaintiff’s fall was “obvious.” The court determined that in such cases, summary judgment in favor of the defense is not appropriate.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a customer of the defendant bank who visited the bank to make a deposit through the drive-thru window. When she arrived, the bank was closed, so she decided to make the deposit at the bank’s outdoor ATM. However, the area around the ATM was under construction. The plaintiff testified that there was a sign in front of the ATM with an arrow to go around the barricade. However, when she walked around the barricade she stepped into a “pot hole,” falling to the ground. As a result of her fall, the plaintiff fractured her foot and leg, and injured her neck and back.

The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the bank, as well as the construction companies that were responsible for completing the work around the ATM. The plaintiff made two claims: first, that the bank was liable under a failure-to-warn theory, and second, that the bank was liable under a failure-to-maintain theory.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

There are thousands of cases filed in Florida courts each month. In fact, so many cases are filed in Florida that the system would get bogged down if each case resulted in a jury trial. To help whittle down the number of cases that ultimately go to trial, Florida courts have enacted a series of procedural rules to ensure that only the most diligent plaintiffs and most meritorious cases are allowed to proceed to trial.

Depending on the type of case and the named defendants, there may be dozens of applicable rules that must be strictly followed. A plaintiff’s failure to follow these rules can result in the court refusing to hear the case until the violation is remedied. In some cases, a court will dismiss a plaintiff’s case outright, preventing the accident victim from obtaining relief. A recent opinion from an Ohio appellate court illustrates how an unknowing plaintiff can end up violating court rules despite the best of intentions.

Davis v. Blaylock:  The Facts

Davis’ father passed away while at a local medical center. At the time of his death, Davis’ father was being treated by several doctors. Davis believed that her father’s death was caused by the negligence of the doctors who were caring for him. In hopes of seeking compensation for her loss, she filed a series of wrongful death lawsuits.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a negligence case brought by a man who was seriously injured when his apartment caught fire after a gas explosion. In the man’s case against the gas company, the court determined that while the gas company may have been negligent in failing to lock the meter after it detected a leak, the plaintiff’s own actions were deemed an intervening cause that severed the initial chain of causation. Thus, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant the summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was moving into a new apartment. Before he moved in, the owner of the apartment arranged for the gas to be turned on. A technician from the gas company came to the property, turned on the gas, and noticed that the meter indicated there was a leak somewhere in the home’s gas system.

The technician filled out a warning card and left it with the girlfriend of the plaintiff’s son-in-law, who was the only one present at the time. The warning indicated that the gas meter was left in the off position because there was a leak that needed to be fixed. The card also explained that the system was left unlocked, so once the leak was fixed, a plumber could turn the system on. This was in direct violation of the gas company’s policy to always leave the meter off and locked when there was a gas leak detected.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a decision in a tragic case stemming from the death of a seventh-grade student that occurred at school while his teacher was out of the room. In the case, the court had the opportunity to discuss when government immunity is appropriate in situations in which a government employee’s negligence is alleged. In this case, unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the court determined that the allegedly negligent teacher was entitled to immunity.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the parents of a seventh-grade student in the defendant’s American Literature class. One day, the teacher stepped out of the room and asked another teacher to listen in on the class while she was gone. However, while the student’s teacher was absent, he and another boy were horse playing when he fell to the ground, fracturing his collarbone. The fracture caused serious blood loss. By the time the teacher returned and called 911, it was too late. The student died later that day in the hospital.

The principal called the teacher to his office to discuss the student’s death. The teacher initially lied to the principal, telling him that she was present when the student fell. It was only later that the principal determined this was not the case. The teacher continued to offer several other versions of what happened, eventually testifying that she was using the restroom at the time of the accident.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Last month, an appellate court in New York issued a written opinion in a case brought by the surviving spouse of a motorist who was killed while attempting to assist an escaped farm animal that had wandered onto the highway. In the case, Hain v. Jamison, the court determined that a sufficient link existed between the defendant farm owner’s negligence and the motorist’s death to fulfill the causation requirement. As a result, the plaintiff’s wrongful death lawsuit will be permitted to proceed toward settlement negotiations or trial.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in the case is the surviving husband of a woman who was killed by a passing motorist as she tried to assist an escaped calf that belonged to the defendant. Evidently, the plaintiff’s late wife was driving on a road near the defendant’s farm late one evening when she saw a calf in the middle of the road. She safely pulled over, exited the vehicle, and entered the roadway to assist the calf. Sadly, as she was assisting the calf, another motorist fatally struck her.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the farm owner as well as the motorist. The farm owner explained that the calf had been born earlier that day, and he had not known of its escape until moments before the fatal accident. However, as soon as he became aware of the missing calf, he immediately left the house in search of the escaped animal. Sadly, he was unable to locate the animal before the accident.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Most people are familiar with the term “statute of limitations,” which refers to the amount of time that an accident victim has to file a lawsuit. Cases filed after the statute of limitations has expired will not be heard by a court, barring some extraordinary exception. In some cases, when a government or public entity is named as a defendant, an accident victim must also provide notice of the lawsuit to the state.

In Florida, victims seeking financial recovery from a government entity must follow strict guidelines, or their claims will not be heard. Specifically, notice of the claim must be provided to both the entity being sued as well as the Department of Financial Services within three years of the accident’s occurrence. An accident victim’s failure to comply with these requirements can result in the dismissal of an otherwise meritorious claim. A recent case in front of a New York appellate court illustrates how, even if a plaintiff’s late-filed case is ultimately allowed to proceed, it can still result in lengthy delays and unnecessary expenses.

Newcomb v. Middle Country School District

Newcomb, a 16-year-old boy, was struck by a hit-and-run driver while crossing the street near his school. Within a few days of the accident, Newcomb’s parents provided the school with the details of the accident. Shortly after the accident, police arrested the driver and began proceedings to criminally prosecute him.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, a Delaware appellate court issued a written opinion affirming a jury’s decision to award a personal injury plaintiff a zero-dollar award despite determining that the defendant caused the accident that the plaintiff claimed caused her injuries. In the case, Rash v. Moczulski, the court determined that the jury’s award was reasonable, given the circumstances and the evidence presented at trial.

The Facts

The Rashes were involved in a car accident that they alleged was caused by Moczulski. After a personal injury case was filed, and a jury heard the case, the jury determined that the Rashes “sustained one or more injuries proximately caused by” the Moczulski. However, the jury awarded the Rashes zero dollars for their injuries. According to the court’s written opinion, the defense presented evidence suggesting the “nature and extent” of the Rashes’ injuries were exaggerated, and the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages while the trial was pending.

After the verdict was issued, the plaintiff asked the judge for a new trial, arguing that the jury’s verdict was inadequate. The judge denied the motion, explaining that “the exact nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injury and plaintiff’s failure to mitigate his injuries through treatment made identifying and compensating the injury quite problematic.” However, the judge amended the jury’s award to provide $10,000 to the Rashes. Both the plaintiffs and the defendant appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Last month, a federal appellate court decided a case involving a man’s claims against the manufacturer of a cleaning solution that spontaneously combusted when he was using the product to clean his basement floor. In the case, Suarez v. W.M. Barr & Co., the plaintiff filed three related product liability claims against the manufacturer of the “Goof Off” brand cleaning solution. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff presented enough evidence on two of the claims to proceed. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim, based on the adequacy of the warning on the product’s label.

The Facts of the Case

Suarez was using “Goof Off” brand cleaning solution to clean his basement floor. Like any responsible homeowner, Suarez read the instructions on the product’s packaging prior to using the product. In preparation, he opened several windows and the door to the basement to allow ventilation, as the instructions recommended.

Following the instructions, Suarez poured the cleaning solution onto the basement floor and used a broom to evenly spread a thin layer of the solution across the entire floor. However, as Suarez was brushing the solution, it caught fire, severely burning him. After he recovered, Suarez filed this case against the manufacturer.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this fall, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a chain-reaction truck accident case brought by a man who was injured not in the original accident but in a subsequent accident caused by backed up traffic. In the case, Ready v. RWI Transportation, the court determined that the accident injuring the plaintiff was too far removed in both time and physical distance to be considered a foreseeable result of the defendant truck driver’s alleged negligence.

The Plaintiff Rear-Ends a Stopped Vehicle

The defendant truck driver caused an accident on the highway when he negligently changed lanes and struck another vehicle. As a result of the initial accident, traffic was slowed as emergency crews cleared the scene. This caused a significant back-up of traffic leading up to the accident.

The plaintiff was driving on the highway toward the accident, traveling at approximately 65-70 miles per hour, when he came upon the stopped traffic. The plaintiff failed to stop in time and ended up rear-ending a vehicle in the far right lane of travel. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident, and he filed a personal injury lawsuit against the truck driver who allegedly caused the first accident, as well as that driver’s employer.

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