Car Accident

$1.1 Million Jury Award in Florida Auto Accident Case Upheld: Zelaznik v. Isensee

Published on: June 19, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland has affirmed a damages award in a Florida car accident case. In Zelaznik v. Isensee, a woman was injured when her vehicle was rear-ended in an automobile wreck. Prior to trial, the driver who struck the woman’s vehicle apparently admitted fault for the crash but claimed she was not responsible for the woman’s physical harm. Following trial, a jury awarded the injured woman more than $1.1 million in damages. The at-fault driver and her insurance company then appealed the jury’s verdict to Florida’s Second District.

On appeal, the defendants argued the damages award should be overturned as a result of three evidentiary rulings made by the trial court. The defendants claimed that the testimony of an expert witness and a police officer were improperly excluded and a video of the injured woman’s surgery should not have been published to the jury. According to the appeals court, any error committed by the trial court with regard to the excluded testimony was harmless as the jurors were provided with the evidence by other witnesses and there was no reason to believe the jury would likely have returned a different verdict if provided with the testimony.

The Court of Appeal also disagreed with the defendants’ argument that the video was gruesome and only offered to inflame the jury. The court said relevance is the test for whether or not photographic evidence should be submitted to jurors in a trial. Still, Florida law states evidence that may result in confusion, unfair prejudice, or that might otherwise mislead a jury is not admissible. Because the trial judge viewed the 15 minute video excerpt for appropriateness prior to allowing jurors to view it and the defendants offered no evidence that the video was gruesome, the appellate court held there was no abuse of discretion regarding admission of the evidence. Since the trial court did not abuse its discretion and any evidentiary errors were harmless, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the jury’s verdict.

Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeals Reverses Summary Judgment in Car Accident Case: Hubner v. Old Republic Insurance Co.

Published on: June 5, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeals has reversed a summary judgment order in a car accident case. In Hubner v. Old Republic Insurance Co., a volunteer for Boy Scouts of America repeatedly transported a potential Eagle Scout in his personal vehicle to a cemetery to participate in a clean-up event. Following the final stage of the clean-up event, the man apparently drove home to retrieve a camera in order to photograph the end result of the Boy Scout’s efforts. After the volunteer returned to the cemetery and took photos, he headed home. The volunteer made no stops on his way home from the cemetery. While en route, the man reportedly struck another vehicle head-on. Both the volunteer and the other motorist were allegedly severely harmed in the automobile accident.

At the time of the collision, the Boy Scouts of America maintained a liability insurance policy that covers the organization’s registered volunteers who are acting within the scope of their official duties. According to the insurance policy, such duties were defined quite broadly. The two men involved in the crash later filed a claim against the insurance company for damages related to their accident injuries. As part of a declaratory judgment action, the insurance company acknowledged that the man was a registered volunteer with the organization for approximately 55 years when the wreck happened but argued before a trial court that he was no longer acting within the scope of his duties as a volunteer when the injury accident occurred.

The insurance company next filed a motion for summary judgment. In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, a moving party like the insurance company is required to demonstrate that no material issue of fact exists and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court granted the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment and the injured parties appealed the case to Florida’s Fifth District. Continue Reading ›

Employer Liability for Rental Car Accident in Florida

Published on: May 2, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case the Florida plaintiffs were injured in a car accident involving a rental car. The rental car was paid for by the employer Bell Partners and authorized for its employee to drive for business purposes. However, at the time of the accident it was driven by the employee’s husband.

The plaintiffs sued the employer under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. It claimed that the employer was vicariously liable for authorizing and paying for the driver’s wife to rent the vehicle. The employer denied liability. It argued that it had not agreed to the employee’s husband driving the rental car and that its policy prohibited unauthorized drivers or personal use of company rental cars.

Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The driver’s wife frequently traveled for her employer who owned several senior living communities in multiple states.

Can a Florida Co-Owner of a Car Avoid Vicarious Liability for an Accident?

Published on: April 24, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, the Florida Supreme Court answered a certified question on the question of whether a co-owner of a car could avoid vicarious liability by claiming he didn’t intend to be owner of the vehicle and had relinquished control to a co-owner. Robert Christensen paid for a Chrysler PT Cruiser in 2003, putting the title in both his wife’s name and his own name. Both signed the application under penalty of perjury to have the title paperwork list them as co-owners. They were in the process of divorcing.

The husband didn’t receive the certificate of title because it went to his wife. He did not have a key or use the vehicle, nor did he live with his wife, though title was in his name. About 22 months later, the wife negligently hit and killed a man while driving the car. The title was still in the name of both husband and wife as co-owners. The car was operated with the husband’s consent.

After the accident, the decedent’s wife Mary Jo Bowen sued for wrongful death against both Christensen and his wife. The plaintiff claimed that Christensen was vicariously liable for his wife’s negligent operation of the vehicle under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. Christensen argued that he wasn’t vicariously liable. He later testified he had bought the car as a gift for his wife and wasn’t involved with the car after purchase.

Uninsured Motorist Coverage in Florida

Published on: March 24, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Under section 627.727(1) of the Florida Statutes (2007), car insurers must offer uninsured motorist coverage unless an insured expressly rejects coverage. This includes coverage for an underinsured motor vehicle. This coverage is intended to protect those that are legally entitled to recover damages for injuries caused by uninsured or underinsured motorists.

In a recent case, the Florida Supreme Court weighed in on the question of whether an insured person forfeits benefits without regard to prejudice under an uninsured motorist insurance contract if he breaches a compulsory medical examination provision. It also answered the secondary question of who has the burden of pleading and proving prejudice.

The case arose out of a 2006 traffic accident involving Robin Curran and an underinsured motorist. Curran and the motorist settled their case and the settlement was approved by Curran’s insurer State Farm. Curran asked State Farm for her $100,000 underinsured motorist policy limits and offered to settle with State Farm if it tendered the policy limits by a specific date. The plaintiff noted her damages were actually about $3.5 million because she had reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome. State Farm tried to schedule a compulsory medical exam based on a provision of the policy requiring it.

Is Failing to Report a Prior Accident Fraud Upon the Court in Florida?

Published on: February 18, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, a Florida appellate court considered a personal injury case in which it was alleged the plaintiff had committed a fraud upon the court. The plaintiff had sued the defendant after a car crash in January 2010, claiming injuries to his neck and back. He had a laser surgery in his lower back late that year.

During discovery, the defendant had propounded discovery requests upon the plaintiff, including an interrogatory that asked him to list and describe in detail all prior car accidents, slip and falls, and workers’ compensation claims he had reported over the past decade. Among other things the plaintiff had to provide a disability rating and explain what part of the body this applied to. The plaintiff answered none to this interrogatory.

A request for production to the plaintiff sought copies of his medical records and other related treatment reports. One document produced by the plaintiff was a treatment note regarding his visit on the date of a crash; the noted stated the plaintiff had one prior accident with no injuries claimed.

Stacking of Inferences in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: January 24, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Stacking inferences is impermissible in Florida personal injury cases, but a defendant may not frame a single inference as multiple inferences in order to defeat a plaintiff’s claim. In a recent case that illustrates this point, a Florida appellate court considered a single-vehicle accident that happened on a part of Interstate 95 that a construction company was contracted to resurface.

The case arose from an accident at dusk. It had been raining most of the day and was raining at the time of the accident. Another driver witnessed the accident, which started in the far left passing lane. The witness thought the plaintiff’s car, which was traveling in that lane, was going too fast for the rainy weather. The witness saw a sheet of water on the road and saw the car go sideways in the air. When he was cross-examined on this point, he stated he wasn’t sure whether there were puddles. The plaintiff’s car landed in the grass by the right lane.

A few minutes after the accident, a state trooper arrived. The plaintiff was taken to the hospital. Later the trooper testified at a deposition that there was standing water in the far right lane. His report included a diagram, which suggested the plaintiff lost control of the car when it touched standing water.

What Happens If You Don’t Settle With All Defendants in a Florida Personal Injury Case?

Published on: January 17, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Sometimes settlement with one defendant in a case is appropriate while settlement with another defendant cannot be reached. In those cases, a plaintiff can proceed to trial against one of the defendants while settling with the other and dismissing him or her. One concern a plaintiff may have in such a case is whether the remaining defendant can blame the other defendant when the case goes to trial.

In a recent case, the Florida District Court of Appeal considered the issue of whether a defendant could introduce evidence that one of the witnesses had previously been a defendant in the case, too. The case arose out of a three-car crash at an intersection.

An injured driver sued the other drivers and the owners of the vehicles they had ben driving. Before trial, the injured plaintiff settled her claim against one driver and the owner of the car he had been driving. She proceeded to trial against the other defendants. The plaintiff filed a motion before trial trying to prevent the introduction of any evidence regarding the dismissed driver’s earlier appearance in the suit and the settlement.

Striking a Juror for Cause in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: November 25, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Personal injury victims in Florida are entitled to jury trials. In a recent case, a plaintiff appealed because the trial court denied her challenge to a jury for cause. Also at issue was the trial court’s refusal to permit her to tell the jury about her Social Security disability status even though the defense attorney had brought it up.

The case arose from a car accident that happened in 2008. The defendant admitted fault. At the start of trial, a jury is empaneled. Before empanelment, the lawyers and the judge conduct what is called “voir dire.” During voir dire, the attorneys and the judge ask question to find out whether the prospective jurors can be impartial.

In this case, the plaintiff’s attorney asked jurors how they felt about noneconomic damages. These are damages like pain and suffering or loss of enjoyment of life. One juror answered that she didn’t like noneconomic damages, but she could follow the law. She explained she was a worker’s compensation and general liability risk manager and she viewed those kinds of damages as punitive.

Negligent Entrustment in Florida

Published on: October 7, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A Florida statutory subsection limits damages when an owner loans his vehicle to another person whose negligent operation of the car leads to damages to a victim. In that case, the owner is liable only up to $100,000 per person and up to $300,000 per incident for bodily injury and $50,000 for property damage.

In a recent case, a father and son shared title to a vehicle. The son crashed into a woman and her three minor children. The accident killed one of the three children and injured all of them. The woman and her husband sued the son for negligence and also sued his father as being “vicariously liable” because he was a joint owner of the car.

The jury found that both the son and the woman were 50% negligent. The jury awarded the father of the three children medical and funeral expenses for the child that had been killed. It also awarded past and future pain and suffering to each member of the family, plus medical expenses to the two living children.