Articles Posted in Car Accident

Recently, news reports described new harrowing details following a Florida Tesla crash that occurred last September. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) conducted an investigation and reported that that the car flew through a yellow light at around 90 miles per hour. The speed limit in the neighborhood was 30 mph. Apparently, as the driver approached reached the intersection, he hit the accelerator to 100%. The driver then sped through the light and slammed into two trees in succession. Following the impact, the car’s battery exploded and burst into flames. The fire reignited at least one time which caused firefighters to experience challenges when trying to extinguish the explosion. The 20-year-old driver and his 19-year-old passenger died at the scene of the accident.

Tesla is frequently under fire for its self-driving or “autonomous” driving options. Many argue that these functions are not nearly as safe as the company touts, and a lack of driver experience and company oversight leads to deadly consequences. However, this accident seems to involve another issue concerning lithium batteries. The NTSB has repeatedly voiced concerns about lithium battery fires in aircraft, Teslas, and other vehicles. The agency has issued safety recommendations urging regulators, manufacturers, and firefighters to prevent and prepare for these types of fires.

Lithium-ion batteries have been the source of highly publicized investigations and recalls. Lithium is the lightest metal with the least dense solid element thereby creating a high-energy-density. This density allows lithium to store more energy over a longer time, compared to traditional batteries. Despite this benefit, the battery poses a serious danger because of its combustible material. A single cell can get hot to the point where it catches fire and spreads to the next cell. This “thermal runaway” effect essentially makes the battery easily catch fire or explode quickly.

The Third District Court of Appeals recently addressed a defendant’s appeal following a jury trial awarding the plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages. According to the facts, the cause of action arises from a car accident when the defendant crossed over the center line and slammed into the plaintiff’s vehicle, causing it to flip over nearly two times. The plaintiff and her children survived, and she filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant. The plaintiff amended her complaint and added a claim for punitive damages, arguing that the defendant was high on heroin at the accident.

Before trial, the parties provided a list of witnesses and any potential expert testimony. The defendant filed an “expert disclosure” for a CPA to testify regarding the plaintiff’s economic damages. Later the same day, the defendant filed a supplemental disclosure for the CPA, indicating that the expert would testify to the defendant’s net worth and the amount he needs to sustain himself. Further, the defendant claimed that the expert would testify about the effect that punitive damages would have on his livelihood. The plaintiff moved to strike the disclosure, arguing it was untimely; the court agreed and limited the CPA’s testimony to economic damages. The defendant testified to his limited financial resources at trial, but he did not call the CPA as a witness. The defendant appealed the jury’s award of punitive and compensatory damages to the plaintiff.

Under Florida law, courts can exercise discretion when determining whether to allow an untimely disclosed witness. Courts should make their decision primarily based on whether the testimony will prejudice the objecting party. Prejudice refers to the objecting party’s surprise, not to the adverse nature of the testimony. Some factors that a trial court should consider including:

A Florida appellate court recently decided a case addressing whether a trial court erred in dismissing a plaintiff’s car accident lawsuit against a deceased defendant. Four years after the accident, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant in the case passed away three months before the plaintiff’s action. The lower court removed the deceased woman from the filing and substituted the woman with the personal representative of her Estate. In response, the Estate moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the court lacked jurisdiction over the action. Specifically, they argued that the action could not proceed because it named a deceased person as a defendant. Further, they asserted that the complaint could not be amended and relate back to the original filing.

Under Florida law, negligence actions must include a:

• A cause of action in negligence;

A Florida appeals court recently considered a Florida car accident case in which the jury had found in the defendant’s favor, despite admissions made by the defendant. The defendant had been driving a car and collided with a motorcycle, resulting in a fatality. The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant and the case went to trial. According to the court’s opinion, prior to the trial, the defendant made some “admissions” in her deposition, which were admitted at the trial. Despite this, the jury found in favor of the defendant, finding she was not the cause of the crash. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the jury’s decision was contrary to the evidence presented at trial and that the jury was bound by the defendant’s admissions.

If a party receives a jury verdict that is not in their favor, the party may be able to appeal the decision and other decisions made by the trial court. On appeal, a Florida appeals court reviews the decisions made by the trial court under different standards, depending on the decision. If a party files a motion for a new trial, the trial court will review the decision to see if it was supported by “competent, substantial evidence,” while considering the court’s observations about the witnesses at trial.

Thus, a trial judge can consider, in light of these observations, whether the jury’s verdict was “unjust” or a “miscarriage of justice.” When an appeals court reviews a denial of a motion for a new trial, the appeals court can only consider whether the trial court “abused its discretion” in denying the motion for a new trial. Thus, the appeals court should only overturn the judge’s decision if the evidence at trial clearly and obviously reflected a verdict in the other party’s favor—only where there is “no rational basis in the evidence to support the verdict.” In addition, if a party appeals a jury’s verdict, an appeals court will consider whether the verdict was “contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.”

Continue Reading ›

Most Florida drivers understand and respect the requirement that they move over to avoid the lane adjacent to a stopped police or emergency vehicle. When possible, drivers should steer their vehicle into another lane if there is an emergency vehicle stopped on the shoulder or the side of the road. Drivers may not know that it is equally important to stay away from any stopped or disabled vehicle on the side of the road. A recent fatal accident on the Florida turnpike was caused when the driver of a pickup truck struck a tow truck that was assisting a disabled vehicle on the shoulder of the turnpike.

According to a local news report discussing the crash, a tow truck had stopped on the shoulder of the Florida Turnpike in Lake County and was preparing to tow a disabled vehicle as a pickup truck approached. The driver of the pickup truck stayed in the lane closest to the tow truck and veered into the shoulder unexpectedly. The pickup truck struck the tow truck and the driver of the tow truck, who was outside of the vehicle at the time. After the initial collision, the pickup truck rolled, and the driver was ejected from the vehicle. Both the tow truck driver and the driver of the pickup truck were killed as a result of the collision. A passenger in the pickup truck survived but was taken to a local hospital in serious condition.

Florida Motor Vehicle Code Section XXIII(316)(26)(116)(1)(b) requires drivers to move over from the closest lane from an emergency, utility, or service vehicle that is stopped on the side of the road performing professional duties. Drivers who fail to follow the move over law can be cited with an infraction offense. In the event of an accident that occurs because a driver failed to follow the move over law, the driver can be found negligent and responsible for damages to any other drivers who are hurt or suffer property damage as a result of a crash.