Car Accident

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.

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.