Personal Injury

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 Appeals Court Reverses Verdict for Woman Injured By Dead Horse in Road

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

The Florida Court of Appeals for the Fifth District reversed a trial court’s ruling for a woman injured by a horse corpse in the road, holding that the defendant Sheriff did not owe the injured woman a duty of care.Kathleen Shinkle was driving on a dark road just before sunrise in a rural part of Flagler County when she struck a dead horse lying on the roadway. The collision caused her car to flip over, resulting in serious injuries to Shinkle. She filed suit against the Flagler County Sheriff. The jury returned a verdict for Shinkle. Moreover, the trial court granted her motion for additur (additional damages) and rendered judgment in her favor.

Exception to Statute of Limitations in Florida Sexual Abuse Cases Only Applies to Intentional Torts

Published on: February 8, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Third District of Florida Court of Appeal recently affirmed a trial court’s ruling for Temple Beth Sholom in a sexual assault lawsuit. Plaintiff Joyce Firestone sought review after the trial court held that her claims against the Temple were filed after the statute of limitations had lapsed.In the early 1970s when she was a minor student at Temple Beth Sholom (the Temple), Firestone was sexually assaulted by Barak Yaron, a teacher employed by the Temple. Firestone sued the Temple approximately 40 years later in 2013. Her claim was based on two primary theories: (1) the Temple was vicariously liable for Yaron’s actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior; and (2) the Temple violated its fiduciary duty to Firestone.

South Florida Federal Court Rules Cruise Operator Had No Duty To Warn Passenger About Open and Obvious Hazards

Published on: January 29, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Lugo v. Carnival Corp., a family of four departed on a cruise vacation in February 2015. While on board the ship, the two children slept on elevated bunk beds. In order to access the bunk beds, the children were required to utilize a removable ladder that did not fully reach the cabin floor. On the last night of the cruise, however, the father slept on one of the top bunks. In the morning, the father apparently fell head first off the ladder while attempting to climb down from the upper bunk in the dark.

According to the man, he lost consciousness as a result of his fall. The father apparently remained in the family’s cabin for some time before seeking treatment from the ship’s medical team. A ship physician ultimately diagnosed the man with a broken rib.

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.

Florida Appeals Court Orders New Trial Following Multi-Million Dollar Judgment Against Tobacco Companies

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

In RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Calloway, several tobacco companies filed an appeal following a multi-million dollar judgment that was entered against them in Florida. In the case, the defendants faced claims of negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy to commit fraud, brought by the estate of a man who died from health complications that were apparently caused by his cigarette addiction. Following trial, the jury ultimately determined the deceased man, who began smoking at age 15, was 20.5 percent responsible for his own death.

On appeal to Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, the defendants claimed a new trial was warranted because the plaintiff’s attorney made repeated inflammatory statements in front of jurors. Additionally, the tobacco companies argued the trial court committed error when it instructed the jury regarding the estate’s fraud claims and entered a joint and several final judgment that potentially held each company accountable for the entirety of the jury award. The defendants also asserted that the jury’s compensatory and punitive damages awards should have been reduced or set aside by the lower court, and their right to due process was violated. In response to the tobacco companies’ appeal, the plaintiff claimed the trial court committed error when it sustained several of the defendants’ objections regarding statements made by the estate’s lawyer.

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.

Florida Appeals Court Remands Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed Against Ship Owners for a New Trial

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

In Soto v. McCulley Marine Services, Inc., a man tragically drowned near Longboat Pass on July 4, 2009 when he fell from a jet ski and was sucked underneath a moored barge while wearing a life preserver. At the time of the unfortunate drowning, a nearby dock was being used as a staging area in connection with an ongoing artificial reef program established by Manatee County. When the man drowned, the barge and a 65-foot tugboat that were permitted to participate in the reef building program were both moored at the dock.

Following the man’s untimely passing, his estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the owner of the two ships. According to the man’s personal representative, the ships were docked in a negligent manner. As a result, the configuration of the vessels allegedly exacerbated the strong tides that were present in the area and caused the man to be pulled beneath the barge despite his safety jacket.

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.

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Fatal Pedestrian Accident Case

Published on: December 11, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal has affirmed a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in a fatal pedestrian accident case. In Panzera v. O’Neal, a man was unfortunately struck by a semi-truck while attempting to cross Interstate 75 on foot in 2011. Following the crash, the man’s estate filed a negligence lawsuit, seeking damages from the truck driver and the supermarket chain that employed him. In response, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

In general, a motion for summary judgment asks a court to rule that there are no material facts in dispute and declare that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When reviewing such a motion, a court is required to view all information offered in the most favorable light for the non-moving party. If a material fact is in dispute, a motion for summary judgment should not be granted.