Car Accident

Admission of Seat Belt Non-use Evidence in Auto Accident Cases on the Rise

Published on: April 25, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas recently released an opinion that overturned an Arkansas law that had made evidence of seat belt non-use inadmissible to prove a plaintiff’s comparative negligence in a personal injury claim. The statute had been designed to prevent defendants from avoiding responsibility for injuries resulting from their negligence because a plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt. Since seat belt use has become mandatory in 49 states and is widely accepted as an important safety precaution, laws in several states that have prevented non-use evidence at trial are being weakened or eliminated.

The Arkansas Case and the State Supreme Court’s Ruling

The case of Mendoza v. Washington Inventory Services was filed by a woman who was a back seat passenger and was injured in a rear-end accident while riding in a vehicle that was being driven by an employee of the defendant. Alleging that the driver of the vehicle negligently caused the accident, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver’s employer, seeking compensation for her injuries. As the case progressed, the defendant sought to introduce evidence that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to her injuries because she was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the crash. The district court rejected the defendant’s request, citing the Arkansas law that specifically prohibited the admission of such evidence for that purpose.

State Supreme Court Reverses $4.5 Million Award in Auto Accident Case

Published on: April 14, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada recently released a decision in which a trial award of nearly $4.5 million was reversed, and the court ordered a new trial. The state high court found that the lower judge’s exclusion of the defendant’s low-impact accident defense, as well as her ruling to strike the defendant’s answer and enter a default award in favor of the plaintiff, was without merit. As a result of the latest opinion, the plaintiff will be required to settle the case with the defendants or prove the claim again at a second trial.

What Appeared to Be a Minor Crash Allegedly Resulted in Serious Injuries

The plaintiff in the case of Rish v. Simao was allegedly injured in an auto accident with the defendant that occurred in stop-and-go traffic. The plaintiff was able to drive his car home after the crash and refused medical treatment at the scene. However, he later alleged that he developed back and spine injuries. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s injuries were exaggerated and could not have been caused by the accident, based on the speed of the vehicles involved and the evidence of the relatively nonviolent impact, suggested by the photos taken at the crash scene.

Before trial, the plaintiff’s attorneys successfully argued to the court that the defense should not be permitted to argue that the crash was a low-impact collision, or that it was not sufficiently violent to cause the plaintiff’s injuries. The judge additionally ordered that the photos of the crash could not be shown to the jury. This ruling was based on the defendant’s failure to retain a biomechanical engineer expert witness who could testify that the forces involved in the crash were too insignificant to cause the injuries.

Jury Finds General Motors Not Liable for Crash Alleged from Recalled Ignition Switch

Published on: April 11, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A New York jury recently reached a verdict in favor of the defendants in a product liability lawsuit that was filed by a couple who alleged that they were injured in a 2014 accident that was caused by a faulty ignition switch in their 2007 Saturn Sky. The jury found that the ignition switch, which has been recalled by the manufacturer, was defective and made the vehicle unreasonably dangerous. However, the jurors also determined that the faulty switch was not the cause of the accident or the resulting injuries to the plaintiffs. Based on the jury’s verdict, the plaintiffs will be unable to collect damages to compensate them for the injuries they sustained in the accident.

The Jury Finds that the Accident was Caused by Icy Roads, Not the Ignition Switch

According to a news report discussing the verdict, the jurors decided that the crash was more likely than not caused by icy road conditions on the New Orleans bridge where it occurred. An attorney for the defendant, General Motors, noted in the article that there were over 30 other accidents on the night it occurred, and he stated that the accident was caused by the driver losing control of the vehicle and had nothing to do with the ignition switch issue.

Although the plaintiffs were not successful in this particular case, General Motors has settled 1,385 other cases related to the issue for a total of about $275 million, according to the article. Furthermore, the judge who presided over the trial made a statement that the verdict should not be read into too deeply by other possible victims of the issue, and it may not dictate the outcome in other cases.

State Supreme Court Agrees Landowner is Not Responsible for Auto Accident Caused by Tenant’s Escaped Horse

Published on: April 4, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of the state of Vermont recently released a decision affirming a lower court’s ruling that the owner of a piece of property would not be held legally responsible for injuries that were caused in an auto accident after a horse escaped from the owner’s property and was hit by a driver. The plaintiff in the case of Deveneau v. Weilt was injured one night after he was unable to avoid a collision with the animal on a road adjacent to the property from which the horse had escaped. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against both the owner of the property and the owner of the horse, who was a tenant of the property owner, and sought damages to compensate him for his injuries and other costs that were incurred in the accident.The Horse Owner’s Agreement with the Property Owner to Pasture the Horses

The agreement between the property owner and the tenant concerning the pasturing of horses on the land was an important factor in the court’s decision in this case. According to the Court’s written ruling, the property owner agreed to allow the tenant to pasture two horses on the rented land “on the condition that [the tenant] take responsibility for all care of the horses and maintain a fence to keep them enclosed.” The tenant constructed a temporary electric fence to keep the horses enclosed, which was electrified through solar power, but the owner had no knowledge of the design or construction of the fence. Although the functionality of the fence was not a controlling factor in the court’s decision regarding the landowner’s liability, it had not been determined if the fence was electrified at the time of the collision.

Defense Verdict Reversed in Road Rage Case Based on Withheld Information

Published on: March 15, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a West Virginia appellate court issued an opinion in a case that arose after a hated exchange between two motorists caused a truck driver to crash. In the case, Phillips v. Stear, the lower court entered a verdict in favor of the defense. However, on appeal that verdict was reversed based on the defendant’s failure to disclose information about his driving history.

A Road Rage Situation Culminates in a Crash

The plaintiff was driving on a West Virginia highway when another motorist pulled in front of him, gave him the “finger,” and then slammed on his brakes. In an attempt to avoid what he thought would be a certain collision, the truck driver also slammed on his brakes. However, this caused him to lose control of the truck and an accident ensued.

The other motorist sped off. However, a witness to the accident followed the motorist and called police, giving authorities the car’s license plate information. Eventually police were able to locate the driver, who was cited for improper lane change. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the other driver.

Florida Accident Victim’s Bad-Faith Claim Against Insurance Company Results in $1 Million Verdict

Published on: March 11, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Insurance companies can be difficult to deal with. Whether it is an aggressive representative trying to get an accident victim to settle a case for a low-ball amount or a claims adjuster denying a seemingly valid request for compensation, insurance companies are not known for their customer service. In fact, in many cases people have to turn to the courts to enforce their own insurance policy against the insurance company. That is exactly what happened in a recent case in front of the Florida Supreme Court.In the case, Fridman v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, the plaintiff was hit by an underinsured motorist and turned to his own insurance company, Safeco, for help. However, Safeco denied the plaintiff’s claim. After continuing to try and get a response for several years, the plaintiff finally filed a lawsuit against Safeco, compelling them to deal with the claim. The lawsuit was filed pursuant to a statute that allowed for recovery in excess of the policy limit.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Safeco sent the plaintiff a check for $50,000 in an attempt to pay out the claim. However, at this point the plaintiff rejected the check, and opted to have a jury determine how much he was entitled to. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury awarded the plaintiff $1 million. Safeco appealed to the intermediate appellate court, which reversed the lower court’s opinion, and held that the $50,000 check given to the plaintiff was, in effect, a settlement that prevented the case from proceeding toward trial. The plaintiff then appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.

Tampa Court Declines to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Car Accident Victim PIP Payments

Published on: March 4, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In AA Suncoast Chiropractic Clinic, PA v. Progressive America Ins. Co., a group of Florida chiropractic clinics filed a class action lawsuit against an insurance company, claiming the insurer breached its contract when it failed to reimburse the medical providers for the care each provided following various motor vehicle collisions.

Under Florida law, motorists are required to carry no-fault personal injury protection (PIP) coverage of $10,000 in order to pay for emergency medical treatment. According to the group of chiropractic clinics, the insurer reclassified the treatment each insured person at issue received as non-emergency care after the insureds were treated. As a result, the insurance company allegedly opted to reduce the PIP policy limits to $2,500, pursuant to Section 627.736 of the Florida Statutes. After doing so, the insurer denied full payment to the clinics. In their complaint, the group of clinics sought both declaratory and injunctive relief.

Miami Court Examines Factors to Consider When Reviewing a Motion to Transfer Venue Following Unfortunate Car Accident

Published on: January 26, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Morrissey v. Subaru of America, Inc., a couple was injured when the vehicle one spouse was driving unexpectedly accelerated and collided with a stone fence in the United States Virgin Islands. Sadly, the wife was left permanently paralyzed as a result of the crash. Following the incident, the couple filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against the Japanese automobile manufacturer, the company’s U.S. distributor, and the dealership that sold the vehicle to its original owners.

In the couple’s complaint, they accused the defendants of negligence per se, failure to warn, negligently designing and manufacturing the vehicle, strict liability, and breach of warranty. The husband also sought damages for his loss of consortium.

Jury’s Pain and Suffering Award Upheld Following Miami-Dade County Car Accident

Published on: January 7, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal has reinstated a jury’s award in a traffic accident case. In Ortega v. Belony, a Florida man suffered a broken neck in a Miami-Dade County automobile collision. Following the car accident, the man was hospitalized for eight days and wore a medical halo device for about three months. The man also refused to undergo the neck surgery that was recommended by his treating doctors.

While recuperating, the injured man apparently moved into a relative’s home, where he received assistance with his daily needs from his brother. According to the man, he suffered from sleeping difficulties and was forced to return to the hospital in order to have his halo adjusted. After the medical device was removed, the man reportedly suffered from mild neck discomfort and residual back pain. Despite this, the man’s physicians did not recommend further treatment for his traffic wreck injuries.

Middle District of Florida Remands Negligence Lawsuit Back to State Court

Published on: December 14, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Middle District of Florida in Fort Myers has remanded a car accident case back to state court after the defendants failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded the federal diversity jurisdiction requirements enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). In Bess v. Day, a Florida man was apparently injured in a car accident that was allegedly caused by a Canadian citizen. Following the crash, the hurt man filed a negligence complaint against the driver and his spouse in a Florida court. The defendants then removed the case to the Middle District of Florida based on diversity of citizenship. Under federal law, diversity jurisdiction exists when the parties to a lawsuit are citizens of different states and the amount of damages exceeds $75,000.

In response to the defendants’ removal, the injured man filed a motion for remand back to state court. According to the man, the defendants failed to establish that the amount in controversy in the case was more than $75,000. The federal court stated removal statutes must be narrowly construed by courts, and any ambiguities are required to be resolved in favor of remanding a case back to state court. In addition, the Middle District said the party who seeks to remove a lawsuit to federal court bears the burden of establishing that removal is appropriate.