Articles Posted in Car Accident

A recent Florida appellate court decision has highlighted the difficulties of many Florida auto accident cases. The court upheld a verdict against the plaintiff, who had argued that the trial court mishandled objections to the defense’s questioning. The appellate court found that these objections did not impact the verdict. Testimonies about inconsistencies between the plaintiff’s trial and deposition statements and expert reports concluded that the plaintiff could have avoided the accident. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s attorney failed to object to witnesses’ testimonies regarding deposition transcripts.

Car accident cases can be extremely complex and challenging. They often require detailed and consistent testimonies and thorough expert analysis. In this case, the plaintiff’s loss underscores the importance of having an experienced personal injury attorney to navigate these difficulties. Expert testimony and identifying and correcting procedural errors are vital in these cases.

The Role of Expert Testimony in Auto Accident Cases

Expert testimony is critical in auto accident cases. Experts provide essential insights into how an accident occurred and whether it could have been prevented. In the recent Florida appellate case, experts analyzed the plaintiff’s speed and concluded that she could have avoided the accident. This testimony was pivotal in the court’s decision to uphold the verdict.

Experts such as accident reconstructionists and medical professionals offer valuable perspectives that lay witnesses cannot provide. Their analysis covers various factors, including vehicle speed, road conditions, driver reaction times, and injury severity. This detailed evidence can determine a case’s outcome.

Continue Reading ›

A recent Florida accident case before the Third District Court of Appeal involved a minor child injured in a car accident. The parents of the child appealed the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Royal Plus, Inc. The court evaluated the three-prong test of respondeat superior and concluded that the driver involved in the accident was not acting within the scope of his employment. As a result, Royal Plus was not held vicariously liable for the driver’s alleged negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, reinforcing the application of the going-and-coming rule in Florida. This case highlights how challenging Florida car accident cases can be, making it crucial to have a skilled Miami car accident attorney on your side.

Going-and-Coming Rule in Florida Negligence Lawsuits

The going-and-coming rule is a legal doctrine used in Florida to determine whether an employer can be held liable for the actions of their employees while they are commuting to or from work. This rule generally states that an employer is not liable for the actions of their employees during these commutes. This principle was a key factor in the recent decision by the Third District Court of Appeal.

In the case at hand, the court examined whether the driver was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. To hold an employer liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, three conditions must be met:

• The employee’s conduct must be of the kind they are employed to perform;
• The conduct must occur substantially within the time and space limits authorized by the employer; and
• The conduct must be motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.

In this case, the driver was found not to be acting within the scope of his employment during his commute, leading the court to uphold the summary judgment in favor of Royal Plus. This decision underscores the importance of understanding the going-and-coming rule and its implications in negligence lawsuits.

Continue Reading ›

Florida experiences a high level of hit-and-run accidents on a yearly basis. According to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FLHSMV), Florida has seen the number of hit-and-run crashes remain steady, with nearly 25 percent of all crashes involving a hit-and-run. The FLHSMV notes that in 2023, there were 104,273 hit-and-run crashes in Florida, a decrease of less than 1% from 2022. Hit-and-run crashes in 2023 resulted in 271 fatalities and 871 serious bodily injuries. Vulnerable road users are particularly at risk. Of the 271 hit-and-run fatalities in 2023, 159 were pedestrians and 47 were bicyclists (76% of hit-and-run fatalities). Of Florida’s 104,273 hit-and-run crashes last year, 86,987 involved property damage only. In 2023 alone over 81% of hit-and-run fatalities occurred during dawn, dusk, or nighttime conditions. Under Florida law, a driver MUST stop immediately at the scene of a crash on public or private property which results in property damage, injury, or death.

There are many reasons why a driver may flee the scene after an accident. The primary motivating factor is likely that the driver wants to avoid the legal or financial consequences of the accident. Depending on the cause of the crash, drugs, alcohol, outstanding warrants, texting, or distracted driving, there could be serious legal ramifications, leading to the driver leaving the scene. Other reasons, such as lacking proper insurance, holding a commercial driver’s license, or driving the vehicle without permission, could result in significant financial consequences for the driver, leading them to flee the scene. A recent news article described a fatal Florida hit-and-run crash.

According to the news article, police are still searching for a driver who they say ran away from a dangerous crash that left his girlfriend dead and six other people injured near Miami Shores. The man who ran away was driving down Northwest 17th Avenue with his girlfriend. He collided with a black Dodge Ram and a Mercedes-Benz that was going east on Northwest 95th Street. After the crash, the driver ran away — not stopping to help the injured or report the crash, police said. His girlfriend died from the collision, and six others were taken to hospitals in various conditions, from minor to critical.

Unfortunately, Florida consistently ranks highly on the list of states with the most traffic accidents each year. One of the most accurate ways to measure risks of fatal car accidents given disparities in populations of states is to measure deaths per 100 million miles traveled in a state. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Florida has a rate of 1.60 deaths per 100 million miles traveled, placing Florida behind only a handful of other states when it comes to the risk of drivers and passengers being killed in crashes. In Florida, roughly 40% of all crashes result in injuries, but most notably, fatalities stemming from car crashes have been on the rise since 2018. In particular, highway crashes can result in a higher fatality rate. Due to the higher speed limits, accidents on the highway can have more serious implications than slower-speed crashes.

When it comes to crashes and accidents, Florida drivers and passengers should be aware of the factors that can be used to calculate pain and suffering damages after a crash. These elements include but are not limited to the type of injury, recovery time required, necessary treatment, and the severity of the accident. These different factors can help determine the value and compensation in court after an auto accident. Many of these elements are tied together, as the more serious the accident, the more likely the recovery time will be longer. A recent news article discussed a fatal Florida car accident.

According to the news article, a 15-year-old unlicensed driver has been arrested and charged in the fatal Florida crash that killed 2 women and severely injured another. Police said the teen was read his rights on the night of the crash and “Post-Miranda, during a video-recorded interview, the defendant confirmed he was the driver of the Nissan Murano at the time of the traffic crash and that he has never been issued a driver’s license, and that he obtained the keys of the vehicle without the permission from the owner.” Authorities said that through investigative means the Nissan Murano reached speeds of 83 miles per hour, two seconds before impact. Police said the teen, who is not being identified because of his age, has been arrested and charged accordingly. The crash happened Tuesday evening in the 400 block of Southeast 5th Street in Hialeah.

Recently, the district court of appeals for the State of Florida Sixth District issued an opinion in an appeal involving an insurance claim between Rosemary Arway and the Progressive American Insurance Company (Progressive). The trial court entered summary judgment against Arway on the grounds that her claim for underinsured motorist (UM) benefits under an insurance policy issued by Progressive was time-barred by a five-year statute of limitations running from the date of Arway’s collision with an underinsured, third-party tortfeasor. Progressive’s insurance contract with Arway, however, tolled
the statute of limitations until the tortfeasor’s bodily injury (BI) liability insurance benefits were fully paid to Arway. Accordingly, Arway timely filed her UM claim against Progressive, and the appellate court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Facts of the Case

On August 25, 2015, Arway was seriously injured in an automobile collision with an underinsured motorist. At the time of the collision, Arway was covered under a Florida automobile insurance policy issued by Progressive, which included UM benefits coverage. The UM coverage section of the policy (Part III) included an exhaustion provision, conditioning Progressive’s payment of UM benefits on the payment of all BI liability benefits by the underinsured motorist’s insurer, and the policy’s “General Provisions” section (Part VII) included a no-action provision, conditioning suit against Progressive on compliance with all policy terms.

On November 27, 2018, in accordance with the policy, Arway notified Progressive that the underinsured motorist’s insurer had tendered its BI coverage limits of $50,000 to settle Arway’s claims against the motorist, and Arway requested that Progressive approve the settlement and release of Arway’s claims against the motorist. On December 26, 2018 (three years, four months after the collision), Progressive approved the settlement and offered to pay Arway $1,000 to resolve her claim for UM benefits under the Progressive policy. Arway and Progressive traded several additional demands and counteroffers, and on December 21, 2020 (five years, four months after the collision), Arway demanded $150,000 from Progressive to resolve her UM claim. On January 15, 2021, Progressive denied Arway’s UM claim on the ground that the statute of limitations had run on August 25, 2020—five years after Arway’s collision with the underinsured motorist.

Continue Reading ›

Recently, the district court of appeals for the State of Florida Fifth District issued an opinion in an appeal involving a negligence claim by the Appellant, Carol Ann Kulzer, who claimed injuries and damages in her suit against the Appellees, Greenleaf Trust, and an employee, Sarah Marie Way. Ms. Way was running errands related to her employment with Greenleaf, such as inspecting and readying condominium units for sale when she stopped for lunch. Following lunch, she was heading back to a condominium for a business meeting when she negligently collided her car into the car driven by Ms. Kulzer. At trial, the court granted Greenleaf’s motion for summary judgment, absolving it from any vicarious liability to Ms. Kulzer. Ms. Kulzer appealed, arguing that Ms. Way was within the course and scope of her employment at the time of the wreck, and the appellate court agreed, reversing and remanding the decision for further proceedings.

Facts of the Case

Ms. Way ordinarily worked for Greenleaf in Kalamazoo, Michigan, but was temporarily assigned to work in Ormond Beach, Florida. Her role in Ormond Beach involved inspecting a condominium unit left to Greenleaf. Inspecting the unit consisted of dealing with some of its contents, helping prepare it for market, listing, and sale. Greenleaf paid all of Ms. Way’s expenses associated with her travel and work in Ormond Beach, including her meals. On the day of the incident in question, Ms. Way traveled to the condominium in the morning, left the premises around noon, and was scheduled to attend a 2:00 p.m. work-related meeting at the condo. After leaving her lunch to return to work, Ms. Way caused the wreck with Ms. Kulzer that prompted the suit around 1:46 p.m.

At trial, Ms. Kulzer sued Ms. Way for her negligence in causing the accident and sued Greenleaf on the theory that it was vicariously responsible for the negligence of its employee committed during the course and scope of her employment. Ms. Way admitted fault for the accident. Greenleaf moved for summary judgment, claiming that Ms. Was not within the course and scope of her employment at the time of the wreck. Under current Florida law, known as the coming and going rule, when an employee is on a single-purpose, personal lunch break, away from the workplace, and not engaged in the employer’s business in any manner, the employee is not considered to be within the course and scope of employment for workers’ compensation purposes. Based on the facts presented at trial, the trial court granted Greenleaf’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that under the coming and going rule, Ms. Way was not acting within the scope of her employment.

Continue Reading ›

Recently, the district court of appeals for the State of Florida Fourth District issued an opinion in an appeal involving a hit-and-run liability claim by plaintiff Alicia McKee against defendant Crestline Hotels & Resorts, LLC d/b/a Hilton Singer Island Oceanfront/Palm Beaches (Crestline). The case arises from a hit-and-run auto accident that seriously injured the plaintiff and killed her husband. The plaintiff sought to impose liability against Crestline on a theory of respondeat superior—that the accident was caused by a Crestline employee acting within the scope of his employment. The circuit court concluded as a matter of law that the employee driver was not acting in the scope of his employment when he hit the plaintiff and her husband in a crosswalk. McKee appealed.

Facts of the Case

On an evening in December 2017, Alicia and Paul McKee were visiting West Palm Beach. At about 9:13 p.m., they began to cross Quadrille Boulevard in the crosswalk at Hibiscus Street on a do-not-walk signal. As they crossed, they were struck by an SUV driven by Anthony Horsford. Horsford had a green light as he traveled south on Quadrille. Although Horsford denied speeding, an eyewitness estimated that Horsford was going about 40 to 50 mph in a 35 mph zone. After the collision, Horsford stopped, got out of his vehicle, looked at the McKees lying in the street, and then drove off.

On the day of the incident, Horsford was employed by Crestline as a banquet manager at the Hilton Singer Island Resort. He did not have set hours or punch a time clock. His duties included setting up and overseeing banquet events, and his responsibility for an event continued “until everything was cleaned up.” He was thus in charge of every part of the banquet “from start to finish.” On the day of the incident, Horsford left a banquet around 8:45 p.m. About 10-15 minutes into the drive, Horsford felt like he hit a “pothole” as he was driving south on Quadrille. He testified that he was not on his cell phone or otherwise distracted at the time of impact. Prior to feeling like he hit a pothole, he did not see anyone near the roadway. Although Horsford denied making any phone calls or using his cell phone during his drive home, other evidence shows that Horsford was using his personal cell phone near the time of the incident. This evidence was ambiguous, however, as to whether he was using his phone to place a work-related call at the precise moment his car struck the McKees.

Continue Reading ›

From year to year, Florida is consistently one of the states with the most annual traffic accidents. One of the most common ways to measure the risk of fatal car accidents from state to state is the metric of deaths per 100 million miles traveled within a particular state. This statistical measurement is helpful for calculating driving risks for various states while controlling for disparities in population from state to state. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the deaths per 100 million miles traveled within Florida is 1.60, placing it ahead of all but a few other states in the nation when it comes to drivers and passengers killed in car accidents.

Fatalities in Florida car accidents have been on the rise since 2018, and currently, nearly 40% of all Florida vehicle crashes result in injuries. Accidents occurring on highways can be especially devastating due to the higher speed limits on highways, resulting in more serious outcomes than crashes occurring at slower speeds. The harm isn’t reserved for people in cars either. Florida sees a significant amount of pedestrian deaths and injuries stemming from car accidents. Drivers should always be aware of their surroundings and be cautious of pedestrians walking and interacting around the road.

When it comes to vehicle accidents, drivers and passengers in Florida need to be aware of the variety of factors that can be used to calculate pain and suffering damages after a car collision. These factors include but are not limited to the injury category, the time required for recovery, treatments, and the severity of the crash. These different elements can help pinpoint the necessary compensation in court after a car crash. Many of these factors are related, as the more serious the crash, the more likely the time to fully recover will be longer. A recent news article discussed a recent dangerous crash in Miami-Gardens where impaired driving was a suspected cause.

Recently, the district court of appeals for the State of Florida Fourth District issued an opinion in an appeal involving a negligence claim by the appellant, Ebsary Foundation Company (Ebsary), against the appellee, Thomas C. Servinsky and Marie L. Servinsky. The Severinskys punitive damages claim is based on the allegation that Ebsary negligently hired Michael Pool (Pool) and gave him a company vehicle. While in that company vehicle, Pool crashed into Thomas Servinsky and caused significant injuries. The Servinskys filed a negligence claim against Ebsary. The circuit court issued an order granting Servisnky’s motion for leave to amend to state a claim for punitive damages. Ebsary appealed.

Facts of the Case

In October 2016, Ebsary hired Pool as a superintendent and provided him with a company vehicle. In December of that same year, Pool was driving that company vehicle when he crashed into Servisnky, who was also driving. The crash totaled both cars and caused significant injuries. Servinsky and his wife sued Ebsary, Pool, and the Geico General Insurance Company. The Servinskys filed an amended complaint alleging, in part, negligence against Pool, vicarious liability against Ebsary, and negligent hiring against Ebsary.

The first amended complaint also included a claim for punitive damages against Pool. The circuit court granted Servinsky’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to include the punitive damages claim against Pool and the negligent hiring claim against Ebsary. Later the Servinskys again sought to amend their complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages against Ebsary. The circuit court allowed the amendment and Ebsary appealed shortly after.

Continue Reading ›