Car Accident

Study Shows Increase in Car Accident Deaths in 2016

Published on: March 6, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Florida, as in any other state, all drivers have a duty to drive in a careful and prudent manner so that they can avoid endangering others’ persons or property. If a driver breaches that duty and injures someone, the driver may be held liable for injuries and other damages. Whether a driver was operating the vehicle reasonably depends on the circumstances of each case. For example, traveling at the posted speed limit may be reasonable under good weather conditions, but it may be unreasonable in a snow storm.Florida law requires drivers to carry at least $10,000 in personal injury protection coverage. This covers medical costs up to the policy amount in the event of an accident, regardless of who was at fault. Drivers also must have a minimum of $10,000 in coverage for property damage. However, in the event of a serious accident, these minimum amounts often do not cover all of the damages an injured person incurs.

Motorist Deaths Increased by 6% in 2016

Data released by the National Safety Council showed that motor vehicle accident deaths in the U.S. rose 6% in 2016 as compared to 2015. According to one news source, the numbers increased 14% compared to data from 2014. The National Safety Council’s numbers are similar to those found by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which found an 8% rise in accident deaths in the first nine months of 2016. Motor vehicle accident deaths amounted to about 40,200 in 2016, which was the first time since 2007 that they were over 40,000.

Court Upholds Jury’s Zero-Dollar Award in Car Accident Case

Published on: February 13, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Sometimes proving the damages in an accident case is just as important as proving the defendant was at fault. In a recent case, one state’s supreme court upheld a jury’s award of zero dollars after a woman claimed she was injured by another driver in an auto accident. According to the court’s written opinion, the driver hit the back of the woman’s car when she was stopped at a traffic light. The driver admitted that he was at fault; however, he argued the woman did not sustain any damages in the accident. As a result, the case went to trial only on the issue of damages.The woman testified that at the time her car was hit, she did not suffer any cuts, scrapes, bruises, swelling, or other visible signs of injury. Her body did not come into contact with any part of her car. Photos taken of her car after the accident did not show any obvious damage.

After the accident, the woman was brought to a hospital at her request. She testified at trial that she had pain in her lower back and the right side of her neck. She said the hospital staff did an x-ray of her neck and back, gave her medicine, and recommended that she see an orthopedist. The woman went to an orthopedist and received physical therapy. However, she did not present any medical evidence to support her claim that her back and neck were injured. Finally, she testified that she had previously had back surgery before the accident occurred.

Court Reverses Grant of Immunity to City in Accident Case

Published on: February 1, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Ohio published an opinion upholding the reversal of a lower circuit court’s decision to dismiss a plaintiff’s claim against the city when he was involved in a car accident with another driver, who had run through a stop sign that was later determined not to be sufficiently visible. The lower court determined that the city was immune from liability for the plaintiff’s injuries because it was a municipal body that was immune under state law. The state supreme court found that an exception to municipal immunity should apply to the case, further ruling that the plaintiff’s claim against the city for allegedly failing to maintain the roadway in a safe condition should be remanded to the circuit court to proceed toward trial if a settlement was not reached.

Plaintiff Is Struck While Driving Through an Intersection

The plaintiff in the case is an Ohio man who alleged that in May 2011, he was involved in an accident when another driver failed to yield the right of way at an intersection and crashed into the plaintiff. An investigation after the accident determined the stop sign that signaled the other driver to stop and yield at the intersection was obstructed by tree branches and was not sufficiently visible to alert approaching drivers. After the crash, the plaintiff pursued a personal injury claim against the other driver and the city where the crash occurred, alleging that the negligent failure to trim the trees around the stop sign created liability for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Court Addresses Claim for Injuries Incurred in a High-Speed Police Chase

Published on: January 23, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Ohio recently published a decision affirming a circuit court’s ruling to dismiss the plaintiff’s case against municipal law enforcement officers after she was seriously injured when a fleeing suspect crashed into her vehicle head-on as the officers pursued him in a high-speed chase. The woman claimed that the officers’ conduct was reckless and wanton and that they should not be entitled to immunity from her claim because of the unacceptable nature of their actions. The final ruling, while affirming the rejection of the plaintiff’s claim, serves to reduce the immunity granted to police officers from that given to them by the circuit court and the Ohio Court of Appeals by rejecting any immunity for officer conduct that is deemed reckless.

Fleeing Suspect Slams Head-On into Plaintiff’s Vehicle

The plaintiff in this case is a woman who alleged that she was innocently driving her car, following all of the traffic laws, when a speeding car driving on the wrong side of the road crashed into the front of her vehicle head-on. The speeding car was being driven by a man who was fleeing from the police, who had been pursuing him in a high-speed chase through the city on roads containing significant pedestrian traffic.

The plaintiff alleged that the act of pursuing the suspect through crowded city streets was done maliciously, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner, since it resulted in the suspect driving as fast as possible with disregard for civilian safety.

Appellate Court Reverses Lower Court’s Denial of Plaintiff’s Request to Extend Notice Deadline

Published on: January 19, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The New York Court of Appeals recently published an opinion that reversed a state lower court’s ruling on an issue arising within a case filed by a woman whose son was seriously injured when he was struck by a car while walking to school. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant school district was initially dismissed because the plaintiff did not serve that defendant with a notice of claim within 90 days of the accident, as required by law. The plaintiff had reasons for missing the deadline and requested an extension, which was denied by the trial court. With the court’s finding earlier this year that the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing to extend the deadline, the plaintiff’s claim against the school district will return to the trial court and proceed toward a settlement or trial.

The Plaintiff’s Son Is Injured in a Devastating Accident

The plaintiff in the case of Newcomb v. Middle Country Central School District is a woman whose son was struck by a car as he walked to school one morning. The plaintiff pursued a negligence claim against the school and the city, as well as the state where the crash occurred. After the 90-day notice deadline had expired, the plaintiff discovered information that the school district had placed a sign near the scene of the accident that blocked visibility and may have been the cause of the accident, and the sign was removed shortly after the crash. Since the materials reasonably available to the plaintiff for the first 90 days following the accident did not include any reference to the sign, the plaintiff requested that she be allowed to add the school district to her complaint.

State High Court Reverses Ruling Against Plaintiff in Roadside Accident Lawsuit

Published on: January 16, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A state appellate court recently published an opinion that allowed a plaintiff’s wrongful death case to proceed. Based on this latest ruling by the highest state court and its ultimate authority over questions of state law, the plaintiff may yet receive compensation for his negligence claim.The plaintiff in the case of Hain v. Jamison is the husband of a woman who was struck and killed by one of the defendants in a roadside accident that occurred one evening when the decedent exited her car on a rural road to assist a day-old calf owned by another of the defendants that had escaped its enclosure and was walking on the roadway. The plaintiff sued the other driver for negligence, as well as the owner of the farm that allowed the calf to escape.

The farm denied legal responsibility for the woman’s death, arguing that the negligent acts of the other driver and the decedent herself were intervening causes that prevented the farm from being liable for the death, even if a jury did find that the farm had negligently allowed the calf to escape.

State Appellate Court Reverses Jury Verdict, Granting Immunity to City in Wrongful Death Case

Published on: January 12, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A panel of the California Court of Appeals recently published an opinion reversing a jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiffs after a trial was held over a fatal auto-pedestrian accident that occurred in 2010. The jury had decided that the city was 100% responsible for the death of the plaintiffs’ loved one, a pedestrian who was hit in an intersection by a driver making a left turn. The city’s claim to be protected from liability by “design immunity” was rejected by the trial court because the city approved changes to the intersection where the accident occurred in 2004 but never followed through with the construction, leaving a gap in their immunity. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the state court of appeals interpreted the law differently from the trial court, ultimately granting the city immunity from the plaintiff’s claim.The Jury Finds the City Liable After a 15-Day Trial

The plaintiffs in the case of Gonzalez v. City of Atwater are the surviving family members of a 72-year-old woman who was struck and killed in an intersection administered by the defendant while on foot in December 2010. The driver who hit the woman was making a left-hand turn into a shopping center and stated that she didn’t see the woman walking with the right of way across the crosswalk before she was hit. The plaintiffs sued both the driver and the city, alleging that the city had notice of the danger presented to pedestrians by that specific intersection and had approved modifications to the traffic lights to address the problem, but the changes were never put into effect.

Plaintiff in Defective Tire Wrongful Death Case Will Not Have Evidence Excluded for Spoliation

Published on: January 4, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The plaintiff in a wrongful death case that had been filed after the death of her husband received some good news last month when an appellate court affirmed a district court’s ruling not to bar the plaintiff from introducing certain evidence at trial. Because of the recent appellate ruling, the case will be remanded to the district court to proceed toward a settlement or trial.

The Plaintiff’s Husband Dies from a Tragic Accident

The plaintiff in the case of Cooper v. Koch is a woman whose husband died in the intensive care unit of a hospital from injuries he suffered about three months before in a single-vehicle accident that was allegedly caused by a catastrophic tread separation involving tires made by the defendant. The vehicle driven by the plaintiff’s husband was totaled. It was towed from the scene of the accident by a towing company that was storing the vehicle for a daily fee. The plaintiff agreed to give the vehicle to a scrapyard after removing the blown tire to keep for evidence in the event of legal action against the defendant. The three other tires and remaining parts of the vehicle were broken up and scrapped or destroyed. At the time, the plaintiff had not filed a case against the defendant.

Court Upholds Judgment for Defendants in Chain-Reaction Truck Accident Case

Published on: December 1, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Mississippi recently published an opinion affirming a state district court’s ruling that granted summary judgment to two defendants in a lawsuit based on a semi-truck accident. The high court rejected the plaintiff’s claim for damages against the driver of the truck, who caused a separate accident that occurred before the accident that injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed suit against this particular defendant in an attempt to hold him responsible for an accident that was caused in part by the slowdown and traffic jam that resulted from the initial accident.By affirming the district court’s granting of summary judgment to the defendant in this case, the court showed how a defendant may not be legally responsible for the result of his or her negligence if there is an intervening or superseding cause between the initial act of negligence and the alleged injury.

Two Accidents on a Busy Highway

The accident that injured the plaintiff in the case of Ready v. RWI Transportation, Inc. was the second of two closely linked crashes that were the subject of this litigation. According to the facts as discussed by the appellate court, the defendant was driving a semi-truck and negligently caused an accident with a pickup truck that was driven by a man who was not a party to this lawsuit.

After Two Appeals and a Six-Year Wait, Accident Victim Will Receive the Full Amount of Jury Award

Published on: November 21, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Colorado recently published an opinion reversing a lower court’s decision permitting the trial judge hearing an auto accident case to reduce the plaintiff’s award after the jury returned a verdict in his favor. The plaintiff was initially forced to sue his own insurance company after he was injured in an accident with an uninsured driver, and his claim for damages under his uninsured motorist coverage was denied.After a jury found that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief he requested, his insurance company successfully asked the trial court to reduce the judgment by an amount he had received from the company through a different type of coverage. In reversing the lower court’s decisions, the court held that coverage for uninsured or underinsured motorists in that state cannot be reduced by a setoff from any other coverage. As a result of the recent ruling, the plaintiff will receive the entire amount that was awarded to him by the jury.

The Plaintiff Is Injured in an Accident with an Uninsured Motorist

The plaintiff in the case of Calderon v. American Family Insurance was involved in an auto accident with a negligent and uninsured motorist in August 2010. The plaintiff carried an auto insurance policy though the defendant insurance company, which included $5,000 in no-fault coverage for medical expenses as well as $300,000 in coverage for damages incurred in the event of an accident with an uninsured or underinsured driver. After receiving medical treatment, the plaintiff had incurred over $40,000 in medical expenses. He then made a claim for those damages and others to his insurance company. The insurance company had previously paid out $5,000 directly to the medical providers pursuant to the no fault medical coverage, but it disputed the remaining amount of damages that the plaintiff requested.