Car Accident

When is Evidence About a Driver’s License Admissible in a Florida Personal Injury Trial?

Published on: October 4, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Both plaintiffs and defendants are subject to intense questioning about personal subjects when engaged in a personal injury lawsuit in Florida. Each side will attempt to find information to discredit the other side. If you drove on a suspended license, if you have a history of traffic violations or you had no license at the time of an accident, you may be concerned about this evidence coming in and affecting your case.

In order for evidence regarding a driver’s license to be admissible in a Florida personal injury case there must be a causal connection between the violation and injuries suffered. The driver’s competence must be at issue. In other words a person’s violation of a traffic regulation is admissible only if it tends to prove the person’s negligent operation of the vehicle or to show the driver’s incompetence.

The accident at issue in a recent case happened at the intersection of Hwy 301 and S.R. 674 in December. A woman was rising in a Nissan Sentra driven by her nephew. He was driving northbound and as he tried to turn onto S.R. 674, he crashed into a white cargo van that was driving southbound. The van belonged to a stucco company and it was hauling a cement mixer.

When Is An Accident Reconstruction Expert’s Testimony Excluded in Florida?

Published on: September 26, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Critical to some Florida car accident cases is the testimony of an expert on accident reconstruction. Often it is unclear what actually happened–the parties either don’t remember or have grossly different accounts of the events. In those cases, an accident reconstruction expert can shed light on all that is unknown by using concrete, certain facts. The other side may not want that expert to testify. When is it appropriate for the court to prohibit the testimony or accompanying evidence?

In a recent case, a couple was driving north in Florida and stopped at a stop sign at an intersection. As the driver turned left, his car hit the plaintiff’s vehicle as it approached from the left, causing the plaintiff’s car to spin and hit a palm tree. The plaintiff was thrown out of his vehicle and suffered significant injury.

The single driver sued the couple, claiming that the husband’s negligence in entering into his lane of traffic caused the crash and his injuries. The defendants argued that the plaintiff caused the accident by going over the posted 35 mph speed limit, a fact they supported on the basis of the husband stopping at a stop sign and not seeing the plaintiff. They also pointed to the physical damage, the final resting point of the vehicles and the plaintiff’s failure to wear a seatbelt as evidence that his injuries were his own fault.

Can a Defendant Use Your Financial Condition as Evidence in a Florida Personal Injury Case?

Published on: August 2, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A Florida appellate court recently addressed this issue in the context of a personal injury plaintiff who claimed her financial situation did not permit her to seek or receive consistent treatment for claimed injuries. The case arose out of a car crash in which the defendant claimed his car was bumped by another vehicle where it rear-ended the plaintiff’s car during stop and go traffic. The plaintiff claimed to be okay after the accident and drove home by herself.

Later she claimed she had a strain or sprain injury in her neck and back and suffered herniated discs due to the accident. She saw a chiropractor who recommended physical therapy for her symptoms: neck pain, arm pain, headaches, numbness, and impaired vision. She quit therapy because it made her feel worse.

Rear-Ending Vehicle Accidents in Florida

Published on: July 24, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Florida, there is a rebuttable presumption that the rear driver caused a rear-ending car accident–that the rear driver’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of a collision. When this rule was put in place, Florida was a contributory negligence state. That meant that when a plaintiff was at all at fault, the defendant could use the plaintiff’s negligence to show he or she should not recover any damages, even when the plaintiff was only slightly at fault.

Last year, the Florida Supreme court decided a rear-ending car accident case that clarified what the rear end presumption means today when contributory negligence is no longer a bar against a plaintiff’s recovery of damages in an auto accident. In that case, a motorcycle passenger was injured when the motorcycle driver unsuccessfully tried to avoid crashing into the rear end of the defendant’s car. The car was driving 35 miles per hour down the road when he unexpectedly slammed on his brakes for no observable reason.

What is Florida Courts’ “Stuart instruction?”

Published on: July 19, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

As if getting into a car accident and suffering serious injuries weren’t bad enough, some people in Florida find that they are further injured when they go to the hospital to treat their injuries from a car accident. In some cases, the original person or people who caused the accident and injuries are also held responsible for any harm that results when a physician improperly treats the injuries.

In such cases, an attorney may call for a “Stuart instruction,” so called because it comes from the 1977 case Stuart v. Hertz Corporation. This instruction tells the jury that “a tortfeasor is responsible for additional injuries caused by the medical negligence of a physician treating the plaintiff for the original injuries.”

A recent appellate case illustrates some of the complications that occur with this rule. In that case, a woman’s vehicle was rear-ended by a male driver. She drove to the hospital complaining of neck and back pain and was diagnosed with whiplash. Although she got follow-up care, the woman still had pain four months later and asked an orthopedic surgeon for his opinion. He diagnosed a muscular injury and disc herniation from the accident and recommended she have a surgery.

Testifying in a Personal Injury Case in Florida

Published on: June 18, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

During trial, it can be difficult for some witnesses to control their emotions, particularly if they believe they’ve been wronged by the other side or their insurer. A recent personal injury case illustrates the importance of controlling one’s emotions in a trial setting, particularly if a judge has expressly ruled that a witness cannot talk about a specific subject.
In the case, the plaintiff was a driver of a car that had gotten rear-ended. She experienced injuries that required surgery. She sued the owners of the other car for damages, as well as her own uninsured motorist insurance carrier, State Farm. Liability was not contested at trial, but damages and causation were.

Before trial, the insurer filed a motion in limine to prevent any evidence from coming in about the insurer’s failure to follow its contractual obligations to the plaintiff. Motions in limine are filed to keep certain information out of the trial and away from the jury.

In this case, the insurer argued its failure to live up to its contractual obligations was irrelevant evidence and it was also inflammatory. The judge granted the motion to exclude the information. However, while testifying, the plaintiff had an outburst regarding the insurer’s failure to pay for her damages.

The insurer moved for a mistrial, arguing that the harm could not be undone. The judge denied the motion and asked the jury to disregard the testimony. The attorney for the other driver asked that the plaintiff’s attorney not be able to make any “bad insurance company” arguments. The plaintiff’s attorney agreed not to do so, but during closing arguments, he made several of these arguments.

Florida Personal Injury Case Involving False Testimony

Published on: June 11, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Florida, Rule 1.540(b)(3) covers the question of fraud or misconduct of an adverse party during a lawsuit. The rule is modeled on a federal rule of civil procedure. Fraud or misconduct “of an adverse party” can include misconduct by either the other party to the lawsuit or his or her attorney. For example, it occurs if a party asks a witness to testify falsely or where an attorney knowingly presents false testimony. It does not include a witness’ own independent fraud, even when such a fraud helps an adverse party’s case.

One type of motion that can be filed if it is discovered that an adverse party committed fraud or misconduct in a lawsuit is a motion for relief from judgment. If a motion for relief from judgment on the basis of fraud is filed, the judge must hold an evidentiary hearing to assess the credibility of the witnesses. Importantly, it is not enough to show a fraud occurred; the party raising the issue must show the other party or his attorney participated in the fraud or knowingly permitted the fraud to go forward.

In a recent car accident case, a motion for relief from judgment became an issue. The case arose from an accident in which the driver of a car was traveling about 35 miles per hour as a motorcycle was waiting to turn left. According to the motorcycle driver he had already come to a stop in the median and was waiting to turn. According to the car driver, the motorcyclist was still in her lane of travel when she hit him; she saw him trying to cross in front of her and he was still moving when she hit him.

The car driver testified she did not skid, but there were skid marks at the scene. The main issue was whether the car was responsible for the accident or whether, as the car driver testified, the motorcyclist was still moving when she hit him. The location of the motorcycle during the accident, as shown by the skid marks, could prove who was responsible.

What is Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine?

Published on: May 24, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Florida Supreme Court adopted the dangerous instrumentality doctrine in 1920. This doctrine provides: a vehicle owner (and others that own inherently dangerous tools) may be held vicariously liable when he or she consents to let someone drive his vehicle who operates it irresponsibly and causes damages. The doctrine is similar, but separate from, the doctrine of respondeat superior, which imposes liability upon a “principal” for negligent acts of his agent that occur during the course and scope of the agent’s employment.

Parents of minors in Florida must take particular note of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. A parent who signs his or her minor’s application for a driver’s license may be held vicariously liable for the child’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle.

A Florida appellate court recently considered the question of whether application of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine means that a driver can be considered an agent of the car’s owner. This is less complicated than it may sound.

The question came up during a wrongful death lawsuit. A car crash killed both the driver of a vehicle and his passenger when the driver failed to stop at a red light. The passenger’s mother filed a lawsuit against the driver’s estate and the driver’s father, who owned the vehicle. The father was included in the lawsuit under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.

Florida Appellate Court Rules Inconsistent Testimony Is Not Enough to Warrant Dismissal

Published on: May 14, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Gautreaux v. Maya, a Florida appellate court considered a dismissal of a personal injury lawsuit based upon an alleged fraud upon the court. The case arose from an automobile accident. The plaintiff claimed continuing migraine headaches as a result of an accident caused by the defendant’s negligence.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s lawsuit. He claimed that the plaintiff had falsely claimed she never had headaches before the accident. At the motion hearing, the defendant presented deposition testimony to this effect. During the same month, however, a neurologist examined her. The neurologist’s report of the examination revealed that the medical assistant had noted that the plaintiff did not previously have the symptoms of headache.

Florida Appellate Court Reviews Issue of Privacy in Auto Accident Case

Published on: May 10, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A Florida appellate court recently reviewed the issue of when a driver’s personnel file can be compelled for purposes of providing proof in an auto accident case in Walker v. Ruot. That case arose from a car accident in which an employee of Bright House Networks LLC injured the plaintiff couple by rear-ending their vehicle with a Bright House van.

The couple filed a lawsuit alleging negligence against both employee and employer. In the course of the lawsuit, the couple served on the employer a request to produce the personnel file of the driver. The employer objected that the personnel file included information irrelevant to the lawsuit and that producing the personnel file violated the driver’s right to privacy.

The couple filed a motion to compel the personnel file in the lower court. At the hearing for the motion they argued that the information contained in the file might support their claims against the employer for negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, or negligent retention. They also argued it might help them locate the employee to serve him with the lawsuit. The employer again objected as to the relevance of the personnel file, but agreed it did not have standing to assert its employee’s privacy rights.

The trial court did not conduct an in camera (private) inspection. It simply ordered the employer to produce the personnel file and ruled that the documents were relevant. The employer appealed this decision.