Articles Posted in Car Accident

In a recent case, the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Fourth District issued an opinion in an appeal involving a negligence action arising from a car accident. The negligence action occurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant after the defendant hit a golf cart with her car, potentially injuring the plaintiffs in the process. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s conduct amounted to gross negligence and sued. The defendant appealed the trial court’s order granting the plaintiff’s motion to amend their complaint to plead a claim for punitive damages.

The underlying accident occurred in the morning on a residential street located inside a gated country club housing community. A resident had stopped his golf cart on the side of the street to speak with the plaintiffs approximately four to five feet past an intersection. The plaintiffs were standing in the street between the golf cart and the sidewalk when the defendant drove her car around the corner and onto the street with the golf cart and the plaintiffs. In the process of entering the street, the defendant collided with the golf cart and hit both of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that one of them suffered from permanent injuries as a result of the crash. Subsequently, they sued the defendant for loss of consortium and later moved to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages based on gross negligence.

In the proposed amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had a habit of speeding in the community, that she was speeding at the time of the accident, and that she ran the stop sign at the corner of the intersection before turning onto the street where they were standing. In support of the allegations, the plaintiffs submitted their own answers to interrogatories, an affidavit from the golf cart owner, and a proffer of testimony from the resident with the golf cart. The court granted the motion to amend and the defendant timely appealed.

In a recent case, the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Second District issued an opinion in an appeal involving the City of Tampa’s (the City) motion to dismiss a citizen’s action against the city for negligence and loss of consortium. The suit resulted from an incident where the citizen was struck by a vehicle while cycling on a bike lane in Tampa. The cyclist was struck between the traffic lanes of West Cleveland Street in Tampa.

The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, the citizen, in issuing the nonfinal order denying the City’s motion to dismiss the action. After the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, the City moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action in that the plaintiffs challenged the design of the bike lane, which would be a planning-level decision for which the City is immune from suit. The trial court held a hearing on the motion and ultimately denied it, determining that the second amended complaint contained adequate allegations to state a cause of action. The City then appealed. On appeal, the City argued that the trial court erred in denying the motion because the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that the City had a duty to warn of a specific danger to cyclists and that therefore it is sovereignly immune from suit.

The appellate decision stated that Sovereign immunity is an affirmative defense that is not properly asserted in a motion to dismiss unless “the complaint itself conclusively establishes its applicability.” Further, the opinion stated Liability cannot be imposed when the government exercises its discretionary, planning-level function; however, operational-level decisions are not so immune. To that point, the appellate court stated that, while the City’s actual design and construction of the bike lane may have been a planning-level decision immune from liability if the execution of that planning-level decision created a dangerous condition, the City’s failure to warn users of the bike lane about that dangerous condition would be an operational function that is not immune from liability. Subsequently, the appellate court held that the plaintiff’s second amended complaint was sufficient to open the courthouse door at the motion to dismiss stage because the facts pleaded did not conclusively establish that the claims were barred as a matter of law, ruling against the defendants and affirming the trial court decision.

Recently, the district court of appeals for the State of Florida Sixth District issued an opinion in an appeal involving a negligence claim by the appellee, the plaintiff, against the appellants, Hernando J. Lancheros and VL Auto Transport, Inc. The appellee sued the appellants claiming they negligently injured him in a car accident. The appellants conceded fault, and the matter proceeded to trial solely on the issue of causation and damages. The appellee stated that he suffered a permanent injury to his back and that the injury was caused by the car accident in question. The appellants contended that the appellee’s injuries stemmed from a pre-existing condition and were not caused by the car accident. At trial, the court improperly directed a verdict on causation. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the lower court decision, remanding the case for a new trial.

Facts of the Case

The appellee, who was twenty-four when the accident happened, testified that he had rowed crew competitively since he was a teenager. He further acknowledged that he visited a chiropractor two times before the accident for back pain due to either weight training or rowing crew. Following the car accident, the appellee did not seek treatment for his back either at the scene or in the aftermath of the accident. He did not obtain x-rays or an MRI on his back in the immediate days after the crash. The appellee waited eighteen days before going to a chiropractor for what he described as lingering back pain after the initial soreness from the accident faded.

Accidents involving both cars and bicycles are increasingly common. According to People Powered Movement (PPM), a bike and walking alliance, Florida had 5,952 bicycle collisions in 2021. Such crashes caused 5,574 injuries and 169 deaths. PPM further found that in Florida, bicycle accidents are overwhelmingly caused by automobile drivers. Of the 169 fatal bike accidents in Florida in 2021, law enforcement officers found that automobile drivers were responsible for 140 of them. In total, that means that car drivers were responsible for approximately 83% of all fatal bicycle accidents in Florida in 2021. PPM similarly found that of the 759 bicycle accidents that resulted in life-threatening injuries and the 4,815 accidents resulting in minor injuries, Florida law enforcement officers placed the blame on automobile drivers in 76% of the serious accidents and 69% of the minor accidents.

Bike accidents result in a high percentage of fatalities for a number of reasons. Bicycles and other open-air vehicles expose the rider to greater risk during collisions as they are often thrown clear of the vehicle during a crash, creating more violent landings. Additionally, many bicycle riders do not use proper headwear, resulting in head trauma during collisions. Any impact to a person’s head is disproportionately likely to result in fatal injuries, further increasing the risk of death in bike accidents. A recently published news report detailed a fatal crash between a bicycle and an SUV crash in Bradenton, Florida, earlier this month.

According to a recently published news report, a 33-year-old man died when an SUV crashed into his bicycle. The man was riding his bicycle after midnight on Wednesday, August 9, when an SUV driven by a 23-year-old man struck the bike. A Florida Highway Patrol report stated that the bike rider was not wearing a helmet at the time and was pronounced dead at a local hospital. Law enforcement reports state that both the SUV and the bicyclist were traveling east on State Road 64 when the crash occurred, throwing the rider onto the bridge’s concrete surface before he collided with a raised curb.

In a recent appeals case, the District Court of Appeals of the State of Florida Fifth District produced an opinion for an appeal involving sovereign immunity for the city of Winter Park in a vicarious liability case involving an off-duty police officer. The plaintiff, a driver involved in the car accident with the police officer, sued the defendant, the city of Winter Park, alleging that Winter Park was vicariously liable for the officer’s purportedly negligent driving. The city of Winter Park moved for summary judgment on sovereign immunity grounds at trial. Following the completion of the discovery process, the trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding that the issue of whether the officer was within the scope of his employment was a fact question. Winter Park then filed a timely appeal.

The incident in question occurred on June 17, 2019, when Officer Rojas, a police officer in Winter Park, was involved in a car accident in Casselberry, a municipality in Seminole County. Officer Rojas receives a “take-home” patrol vehicle to drive to and from work and for use during each shift. On the day of the accident, Officer Rojas testified that his shift ended at 3:00 p.m. and shortly thereafter, he left the police station in his take-home patrol vehicle. Roughly 30 minutes after his shift ended, he was involved in a car accident along his customary route home.

The crash occurred in Casselberry, which is beyond the Winter Park city limits. Officer Rojas was not performing any duties as a police officer following the end of his shift, though he was in his Winter Park police uniform. Ultimately, the trial court ruled that the question of if Officer Rojas was within the scope of his employment was a disputed issue of material fact for a jury to resolve. Winter Park appealed, maintaining that it is entitled to sovereign immunity as a matter of law.

Continue Reading ›

In 2021, Florida experienced a total of 401,533 car crashes, including 3,445 fatal accidents and 163,961 crashes resulting in injuries. According to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FLHSMV), there have already been 146,074 vehicle crashes in Florida this year. The FLHSMV states that those accidents have resulted in 93,662 total injuries and 1,256 deaths. As vehicle accidents and crashes continue to occur throughout Florida, it is vital to be aware of the car accident laws in effect within the state.

Minimum Insurance Requirement

Florida does not require drivers to have bodily injury liability insurance coverage. This is uncommon as the majority of states require this type of coverage. Bodily injury liability insurance covers injury-related losses that a policyholder causes to other motorists if the policyholder is deemed responsible for the accident. Instead of requiring bodily injury liability insurance, Florida requires motorists to have a minimum of $10,000 in personal injury protection coverage and a minimum of $10,000 in property damage liability coverage. Personal injury protection coverage pays for a policyholder’s own losses following an injury from a collision while property damage liability coverage addresses property damage that the policyholder causes others in a collision.

Mandatory Police Reporting

There is a common misconception that automobile accidents must always be reported to the police. In Florida, drivers involved in a collision are required to report a crash to policy only if one of the following two things are true: (1) the crash caused a minimum of $500 in vehicle or property damage, or (2) the crash caused injury or death. If a crash does not meet either of those criteria, drivers may self-complete a “Driver Report of Traffic Crash Report” or a “Driver Exchange of Information” as detailed by the FLHSMV.

Continue Reading ›

Head-on collisions are some of the most serious and deadly types of car accidents. Head-on car collisions occur when two cars going in opposite directions come into contact, often with devastating consequences. The causes of such crashes are broad, but the resulting crashes are often severe. Occasionally, road design or layout can be responsible, such as if there is inadequate signage or confusing traffic lining on the roads. In some instances, the vehicle manufacturer could be responsible if a vehicle defect causes a crash. However, in most head-on car accidents, at least one of the drivers involved is responsible for the crash. The driver or motorist could be drunk or tired, leaving their lane, resulting in a head-on crash. Determining who is responsible is an essential task when exploring a legal claim for damages. Having a good understanding of the cause of a crash can ensure you recover the maximum compensation for your injury.

According to the Insurance Information Institute (III), head-on collisions accounted for approximately 10% of all fatal motor vehicle accidents in the year 2020. Head-on collisions are extremely dangerous and resulted in 3,621 deaths and thousands more injured throughout 2020 according to the institute. The various causes of head-on collisions range from distracted driving or inhibited driving to reckless driving and fatigue. The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FLHSMV), tracked 32,445 crashes throughout Florida in April 2023. The FLHSMV reports that those accident levels are slightly down from the 35,620 car accidents that occurred in March. A recent news article discusses a serious head-on collision in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

According to the news report, the accident occurred on Friday, April 28, when a white Chevy Camaro heading north crashed into a silver Toyota pickup truck heading south. A member of the highway patrol stated that the Chevy Camaro was in the southbound lanes near Northwest 199th Street when it crashed head-on into the Toyota pickup truck heading south. The highway patrol stated that all of the lanes in both the southbound and northbound directions were closed in the area to allow for the landing of an air rescue helicopter. The helicopter transported the driver of the Chevy Camaro to Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Ryder Trauma Center. The driver of the Chevy Camaro suffered serious injuries while the driver of the Toyota pickup truck had only minor injuries.

The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FLHSMV), tracked 32,445 crashes throughout Florida in April 2023. The FLHSMV reports that those accident levels are slightly down from the 35,620 car accidents that occurred in March. According to the Insurance Information Institute (III), head-on collisions accounted for over 10% of all fatal motor vehicle accidents in 2020. Head-on collisions are extremely dangerous and resulted in 3,621 deaths and thousands more injured throughout 2020 according to the III. Causes for head-on collisions range from distracted driving or inhibited driving to reckless driving and fatigue. Such collisions typically occur when a car crosses into an opposite lane of traffic and strikes a car going in the other direction. A recent news article discusses a fatal head-on collision in Marion County, Florida.

According to the news report, the accident occurred around 11:45 am on Friday, April 28, when a 2006 Chevrolet Trailblazer collided with a 2013 Honda CR-V. A member of the highway patrol stated that the Chevrolet Trailblazer was heading East on Highway 387 when it went left of center and struck the Honda CR-V head-on. The driver and both passengers inside the Honda CR-V were all killed in the crash as well as the driver of the Chevrolet Trailblazer. A passenger in the Chevrolet Trailblazer was injured and taken to a nearby hospital for treatment. The Marion County Coroner stated that one of the vehicles had Florida license plates while the other car had Ohio license plates. The identities of the individuals involved in the crash had not been revealed at the time of publication.

In most head-on car accidents, at least one of the drivers involved is responsible for the crash. If a driver or motorist is drunk or tired and leaves their lane, resulting in a head-on crash, they would be responsible. Occasionally, road design or layout can be responsible, such as if there is inadequate signage or confusing traffic lining on the roads. In some instances, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible if a vehicle defect causes a crash. Determining who is responsible is an essential task when exploring a legal claim for damages. Having a good understanding of the cause of a crash can ensure you recover the maximum compensation for your injury.

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, the plaintiff, against the appellee, First Team Ford, LTD d/b/a Autonation Ford Sanford, a Florida Limited Partnership (the Dealership). Ryan Matthews, the general manager of the Dealership drove a Ford Expedition owned by the dealership home one day. On his drive home, he got in an automobile accident with the plaintiff. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff filed a complaint against Matthews and the Dealership, alleging a negligence claim against Matthews, and a vicarious liability claim against the Dealership. The plaintiff settled with Matthews and the case proceeded solely against the Dealership. At trial, the court entered a final summary judgment in favor of the Dealership.

Facts of the Case

On December 21, 2016, Matthews, the general manager of the Dealership, drove his wife’s vehicle, a Chevy Tahoe, into the dealership. Matthews testified that he brought the Chevy Tahoe into the Dealership to get the oil changed, but also that he was interested in purchasing a Ford Expedition, and used this as an opportunity to test one out. While there, Matthews executed a “Loaned Vehicle Agreement” in order to drive home a Ford Expedition owned by the Dealership. Matthews left the Dealership driving the Ford Expedition. On the drive home, Matthews got into a car accident with the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a complaint against both Matthews and the Dealership, alleging negligence by Matthews and vicarious liability against the Dealership under Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine. Matthews and the plaintiff settled, leaving only the case against the Dealership.