Cecere Santana is collecting toys for children in need in collaboration with Operation Elf. Please bring in new, unwrapped toys (any kind or age group) to the Cecere Santana offices in Sunrise:
Cecere Santana, PA
13680 NW 5th Street
Published on:
Plaintiff’s Chain-Reaction Accident Case Dismissed for Failure to Establish Necessary Elements
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.
Published on:
Trial Court Allows Defendant to Interview Plaintiff’s Unused Expert, Appellate Court Reverses on Appeal
Earlier this month, an appellate court in Missouri reversed a lower court that had allowed a defendant in a product liability case to depose the plaintiff’s expert witness after the plaintiff disclosed the identity and substance of the expert’s testimony and then decided not to use the expert. In the case of Malashock v. Jamison, the appellate court held that the lower court erred in determining that the plaintiff had waived the attorney work product privilege by designating the expert and disclosing some basic information about his testimony.
The Attorney Work Product Privilege Protects Certain Information Prepared in Anticipation of Litigation
In Florida, the attorney work product doctrine acts to protect certain information from pre-trial discovery. Normally, parties are able to ask for all relevant information from the opposing party during pre-trial discovery. However, under the privilege, a party does not need to pass “documents and other tangible things . . . prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.” Importantly, the privilege covers both facts as well as opinions about a case or issue.
A Plaintiff’s Expert Is Nearly Used Against Him
The plaintiff in Malashock v. Jamison was injured in an accident involving a utility vehicle. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the dealer from which he obtained the vehicle. To help prove his claim, the plaintiff designated four experts who were to testify at trial. While the experts’ names and areas of specialty were released to the defendant, no specifics about the experts’ testimony were made available.
Published on:
Johnson & Johnson Hit with Several Multi-Million Dollar Lawsuits
Over the past few months, Johnson & Johnson has been found liable in several product liability lawsuits, based on the continued use of its talc-based baby powder. According to one recent financial news source, the company was most recently found liable for over $67 million, which puts the total amount for all of the baby powder lawsuits brought against the company at about $195 million.
The cases proceed under a product liability theory and rely on recently discovered evidence that the continued use of talc-based products can result in certain kinds of cancer. Specifically, the research indicates that the use of baby powder in women’s genital areas can lead to ovarian cancer. There are currently about 2,500 lawsuits pending filed by women who have suffered from various sicknesses – mostly ovarian cancer – after the continued use of the product.
Johnson & Johnson denies that its product causes cancer. According to the news source, the company plans to appeal the most recent ruling, based on an alleged tainting of the jury pool. Johnson & Johnson claims that the woman’s lawyers ran several ad campaigns prior to her trial in the jurisdiction where the trial took place. The woman’s lawyers deny the company’s claim, and a court has yet to rule on the issue. For now, all of the verdicts in favor of the plaintiff will stand.
Published on:
Appellate Court Explains a Landowner’s Duty to Prevent Slip-and-Fall Accidents
Earlier this month, an appellate court in Kentucky issued a written opinion outlining how lower courts should analyze premises liability claims. In the case, Goodwin v. Al J. Schneider Company, the highest court in the state held that the lower courts misapplied the relevant analysis in dismissing the plaintiff’s lawsuit.
The Facts of the Case
Goodwin and his wife were attending a convention in the defendant’s hotel. On his second day at the hotel, Goodwin slipped and fell as he attempted to enter the shower, injuring his knee. The shower had a grab bar to assist guests in entering the shower, but there was no shower mat. Other rooms in the hotel did have both a grab bar and a shower mat, and after Goodwin’s fall, the hotel provided him and his wife with a shower mat for the remainder of their stay.
Goodwin filed a premises liability lawsuit against the hotel, claiming that the hotel was negligent in failing to provide a shower mat. The hotel responded to the claim by asserting that it did not have a duty to provide both a shower mat and a grab bar, and that by providing a grab bar, the hotel’s duty was met. Furthermore, the hotel claimed that Goodwin’s fall was due to his own carelessness.
Published on:
Cecere Santana Supports Food Drive
In collaboration with “Feeding South Florida,” Cecere Santana, P.A. is hosting it’s 3rd Annual Thanksgiving Food Drive.
Please bring non-perishable items, such as stuffing, cranberry sauce, canned vegetables, boxed potatoes, etc. to our offices.
We will be collecting these items until Monday, November 21st. Items may be dropped-off between 9 am – 5 pm at:
Published on:
Case Filed by Casino Patron Injured While Boarding Free Shuttle Allowed to Proceed
Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion in a personal injury case brought by a woman who was injured while she was boarding a free shuttle operated by the defendant casino. In the case, Huang v. The Bicycle Casino, the appellate court reversed a lower court’s ruling that had granted the casino’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the shuttle was not a common carrier and that the casino’s duty did not extend to preventing the type of injury the plaintiff sustained.
The Facts
Huang was a frequent casino patron. As a part of the casino’s marketing strategy, it operated a free shuttle to pick up certain patrons throughout the city at numerous stops. However, the shuttles ran every hour, and these stops would often have more people waiting at them than the shuttle had room to transport.
On the day in question, there were between 40 and 70 people waiting for the shuttle. The shuttle could only carry 45 people. As the shuttle pulled up, the crowd rushed to get on board, and Huang was injured as she tried to get on the bus. She filed a personal injury lawsuit against the casino, claiming that it was operating as a common carrier and had a duty to prevent this kind of injury.
Published on:
Alcohol Consumption Can Result in Liability for Some Florida Residents But May Protect Others
Drinking too much can be very dangerous, and excessive alcohol consumption leads to about 88,000 deaths each year in the United States. But while most people are at greater risk of injury while drinking, some people may actually be shielded from liability under Florida law.
Under Florida statute 768.36, a plaintiff cannot recover damages if at the time of the accident, the plaintiff was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and the plaintiff is determined to be more than 50 percent at fault for the accident as a result of his intoxication. That means that a person who is injured may not be able to recover compensation from an at-fault party who contributed to their injury if the injured person was under the influence at the time. In order for this doctrine to apply, the plaintiff has to be under the influence to the extent that the person’s “normal faculties were impaired,” or the plaintiff had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 or higher. Of course, this leaves room for interpretation.
Under the statute, alcohol means any distilled spirit or any beverage with 0.5 percent or more alcohol by volume. In addition, the term “drug” refers to any controlled substance but does not include lawfully obtained drugs or medications that are taken according to a valid prescription. A drug also does not include a medication sold over the counter and taken in the recommended dosage. The statute arises from the concept of “comparative” or “contributory” negligence, which generally holds that a plaintiff’s recovery may be limited or barred by the plaintiff’s own negligence.
Published on:
Attorneys at Cecere Santana Share Driving Tips for Teens to Prevent Fatal Accidents
According to an October 12, 2016 CBS News article, the number of teenagers involved in deadly car crashes is rising for the first time in nearly a decade. In 2015, there was a 10-percent increase in teen driving deaths. “In fact, teenage drivers are more than one-and-a-half times more likely than adults to be involved in a deadly crash,” said personal injury attorney Erick Santana, a founding partner at Cecere Santana.
To help prevent fatal accidents involving teens, Santana and Cecere Santana co-founder Michael Cecere share the following three tips:
No. 1: Always wear your seat belt. “Of the teens who died in passenger vehicle crashes, approximately 55% were not wearing a seat belt at the time of the crash,” said Cecere. “Research shows that seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about half.”
Published on:
Attorney Carlos E. Sandoval Informs Immigrants About Eligibility for Provisional Waivers
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has expanded the existing provisional waiver process to allow certain individuals who are family members of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) and those who are statutorily eligible for immigrant visas to more easily navigate the immigration process. The new law promotes family unity by reducing the time that eligible individuals are separated from their family members while they complete immigration processing abroad.
“Until now, only the immediate relatives of American citizens were eligible to seek provisional waivers before departing the U.S. for the processing of their immigrant visas,” said attorney Carlos E. Sandoval. “The law now expands eligibility to all individuals who are statutorily eligible for the waiver of the unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility.”
What this means in practical terms is that if an applicant can demonstrate extreme hardship to a United States citizen or legal permanent resident spouse or parent, that applicant may apply for and receive a provisional waiver, whether the basis for the immigrant visa is a family-based petition or an employment-based petition, or even to diversity lottery or special immigrant classifications.