Personal Injury

Court Upholds Verdict in Icy Road Car Accident Case

Published on: September 23, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Alaska recently decided to uphold a jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant in a personal injury claim. The plaintiff had sought damages from the defendant as compensation for injuries that she allegedly suffered in an auto accident caused by the defendant’s failure to stop on an icy road. As a result of the court’s ruling, the plaintiff is unlikely to receive compensation for her personal injury claim.

The Plaintiff’s Vehicle Was Struck From Behind by the Defendant

The plaintiff in the case of Marshall v. Peter is a woman who was allegedly injured when her vehicle was hit by the defendant’s while she waited to perform a left turn. The defendant responded to the complaint and denied that he acted negligently, testifying that he had left adequate space between his vehicle and the plaintiff’s vehicle and that the accident was caused by the icy road conditions. The jury considered the plaintiff’s claims and testimony at trial and decided the defendant was not negligent or responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries.

The Plaintiff Appeals to the Alaska Supreme Court

The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s rulings to the state supreme court, arguing that the claim should not have been rejected by the jury as a matter of law. The appellate court favored the defendant’s arguments, noting that the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant was exercising due care when operating his vehicle and was not negligent in failing to prevent the accident. The Court additionally entered a judgment against the plaintiff for part of the defendant’s attorneys fees after the plaintiff failed to reasonably consider a settlement offer made by the defendant during pre-trial negotiations.

State Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Government Defendant in Boating Accident Case

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

The Iowa Supreme Court recently released a decision in which they affirmed a lower court’s decision in a wrongful death case filed by the family of a boy who was killed in a boating accident on a lake. The claim, which had been made against the state Department of Natural Resources, alleged that the state agency was liable for damages by allowing a submerged dredge pipe to be kept in the lake, creating an unreasonably dangerous condition that resulted in the deadly accident. Based on the most recent ruling, the plaintiffs will be unable to recover damages from the Department of Natural Resources for the death of their son.

Boat Operator Ignores Warning Buoys and Crashes Into Submerged Pipe

The plaintiffs in the case of McFarlin v. State were the surviving family members of a boy who was killed while riding in a speedboat on an Iowa lake. According to the facts noted in the appellate opinion, the operator of the boat and the boy’s mother’s boyfriend failed to notice or avoid a submerged dredge pipe that had been placed in the lake by the defendant. The boat operator drove the boat between two warning buoys, colliding with the submerged pipe and flipping the engine up into the passenger compartment of the boat. The propeller, which was still moving at this time, struck the boy and killed him.

The Plaintiffs’ Allegations Against the Defendant

After the boy’s death, the plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the state agency that was responsible for the placement of the dredge pipe. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the defendant should be held accountable for the damages because the dredge pipe was placed in the lake in alleged violation of a state regulation that stated such equipment should not be placed in a manner that creates a danger to other users of the lake. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants early in the case proceedings, finding that the plaintiff could not sue the government for its alleged negligence, based on sovereign immunity grounds.

Personal Injury Claim Dismissed after Attorney Misses Hearing

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

The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently published an opinion that affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss a plaintiff’s personal injury lawsuit. The reason for the dismissal was what appeared to be a simple clerical error, although the plaintiff’s attorney failed to respond to the motion to dismiss or attend the hearing that was scheduled to address the defendant’s motion. As a result of the state supreme court ruling, the plaintiff may be unable to receive compensation for his alleged injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence.

Plaintiff Was Allegedly Injured at Defendant’s Nightclub and Files Suit

According to the facts explained in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff filed a personal injury claim against the defendant, who was the owner of a bar and nightclub, after the plaintiff was injured in a fight at the nightclub. The plaintiff retained an attorney and filed a personal injury claim against the defendant. The plaintiff’s complaint misstated the date of the plaintiff’s injuries, claiming that the incident occurred over three years prior to the date the complaint was filed.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the three-year statute of limitations had passed, and the plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed too late. A hearing was scheduled for the parties to argue the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff’s attorney could have presumably requested to amend the complaint with the correct dates, although no objection was filed, and the plaintiff’s attorney didn’t attend the hearing. Since the defendant’s motion was not contested, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s case.

State Supreme Court Reinstates Jury Verdict after Considering Jurisdictional Issue

Published on: July 5, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Michigan Supreme Court recently released an opinion that reversed a lower appellate court’s ruling setting aside a jury verdict in favor of an auto accident plaintiff over a jurisdictional issue. The plaintiff’s award had been vacated by the state court of appeals because the amount of damages that she claimed to have suffered at trial exceeded the $25,000 jurisdictional limit of the court where her initial complaint was filed. The state supreme court reversed the court of appeals’ decision, ruling that since the plaintiff’s complaint requested damages within the jurisdictional limit, and the final award was within that limit, the trial court had jurisdiction over her claim regardless of the evidence actually presented at trial suggesting damages in excess of the limit. Based on the most recent ruling, the plaintiff will receive the $25,000 awarded to her at trial, but she will not be compensated for any damages she incurred in excess of that amount.

The Plaintiff Was Seriously Injured in an Accident with a Driver Insured by the Defendant

The plaintiff in the case of Hodge v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company was a woman who was struck by another vehicle while driving and suffered serious injuries. After sustaining the injuries, the woman filed a personal injury lawsuit against the insurance company that represented the other driver.

The plaintiff’s suit was filed in a county district court in Michigan, which only has jurisdiction over claims demanding $25,000 or less in damages. Although the plaintiff’s complaint specifically requested damages “not in excess of $25,000,” it was apparent before trial that she would present evidence demonstrating over $25,000 in damages. The district court allowed the case to proceed to trial, and the plaintiff was awarded approximately $86,000 by the jury, which was subsequently reduced by the judge to the $25,000 jurisdictional limit.

State Supreme Court Rules that Post-Mortem Misconduct by Doctor Is Medical Malpractice, Reverses Damages Award

Published on: June 13, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of the State of Texas recently released an opinion holding that a defendant’s actions in improperly obtaining a woman’s consent for a private autopsy of her husband, who died while under their care, was a medical malpractice claim. Although the ruling in the case of Christus Health v. Carswell may arguably expand the definition of medical malpractice within the state to include actions taken after a patient’s death, the ultimate result of the court’s ruling was to reverse a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff. The judgment was reversed because the court found that the claims alleging the post-mortem malpractice were not made within the two-year statute of limitations for health care liability claims in the state of Texas.

Plaintiff’s Husband Found Unresponsive in Hospital Bed after Receiving Narcotic Pain Medication from Doctors

According to the facts discussed in the court’s opinion, the case was initially filed after the plaintiff’s husband was found dead in his hospital bed after being admitted to the hospital with complaints of severe pain. He was initially prescribed narcotics to treat his pain, but they were discontinued after he suffered an adverse reaction. Subsequently, he was given additional pain medication by a different medical provider after the severe pain returned, and he was found dead shortly thereafter.

After her husband’s death, the plaintiff requested that an autopsy be performed at the county medical examiner’s office, although she was told that the medical examiner’s office declined to perform the autopsy. A subsequent autopsy performed at another facility operated by the defendant failed to include a toxicology screening. The plaintiff alleged that the failure to include a toxicology screening in the autopsy prevented the autopsy from determining if a drug overdose or adverse reaction contributed to his death.

The Importance of a Thorough Accident Investigation in South Florida

Published on: April 28, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

South Florida accident and personal injury cases often involve two or more conflicting stories, and it can be up to a judge or jury to decide who is telling the truth. Plaintiffs and defendants in a Miami personal injury lawsuit must offer evidence to prove their side of the story. In some instances in which one party appears more believable than another but conceals the facts, the truth of what happened can be hidden from the judge or jury, resulting in an accident victim being denied compensation even when another driver was in fact negligent and caused the alleged injuries.

The Investigation: The First Step in a Successful Personal Injury Claim

Florida accident victims may wonder what the process entails in making an injury claim in state or federal court, and an experienced attorney can shed light on how a claim for damages should proceed. One of the first steps to collecting damages in a South Florida personal injury lawsuit is for the plaintiff’s attorney to ensure that a full investigation is performed into what exactly happened to cause their client’s injuries. It’s not that lawyers don’t believe their client’s side of the story. The investigation is necessary because experienced injury attorneys know the strategies that defendants and insurance companies may use to avoid liability. Only by having a qualified investigative team perform a full investigation of an accident can a Miami injury lawyer begin to construct the best case for their client to receive a fair damages award after an 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 Finds that Children Under Five Years Old Cannot Be Held Accountable for Negligence

Published on: April 18, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Utah Supreme Court recently released an opinion holding that as a matter of law, children under the age of five cannot be held accountable for their own negligence. The decision was handed down after the parents of a four-year-old boy appealed a district court decision that allowed a negligence case against their son to proceed. The plaintiff in the case of Nielsen v. Bell was made permanently blind in one eye after the defendant threw a toy at her while she was babysitting him. Based on the Utah Supreme Court’s decision, as well as the lower court’s ruling that dismissed a negligent supervision claim against the boy’s parents, the plaintiff will be unable to receive compensation for her injuries.

The District Court Found the Boy Could Be Held Accountable for Negligence

The plaintiff sued both the four-year-old boy and his parents for negligence after he threw a toy dolphin at her and struck her in the eye while she was babysitting him. Although she later agreed that her claim against the boy’s parents had no merit, the district court accepted her claim that the boy could be held accountable for negligence. On an interlocutory appeal by the boy’s parents, the Utah Supreme Court intervened in the case to settle the law on the minimum age at which a child can be held accountable for negligence.

The Utah Supreme Court elected to adopt a rule that puts a fixed age limit on the capability of children being liable for negligence. Although the defendants argued that the court should not allow claims against any child under the age of seven, the court decided to follow an alternative rule that barred claims against children younger than five. The court determined that children under the age of five have a limited capacity to appreciate how their actions can cause harm to themselves or others and have an inadequate internal ability to control impulses that may lead to injuries. Based on this finding, the court held as a matter of law that children under five can never be liable for negligence.

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.

Personal Injury Appeal Dismissed Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Preserve Error

Published on: March 18, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a federal circuit court of appeals issued a written opinion that makes clear the importance of having attentive and knowledgeable attorneys involved in a personal injury case. In the case of Stults v. International Flavors, the appellate court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims because they failed to make a timely objection at trial, thus preserving the error for appeal.

A Brief History of the Facts

The facts of the case are a bit unusual. The plaintiff consumed between one and three bags of microwavable popcorn per day for about 20 years. At some point, the plaintiff was diagnosed with a lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans, which is an inflammation and scarring along the airways of the lung. It caused the plaintiff to cough excessively and have a difficult time breathing. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer claiming that the manufacturer of microwavable popcorn was liable for his lung disease because the chemical used to create a buttery flavor in the product was shown to cause bronchiolitis obliterans.

At trial, there was a “battle of the experts,” meaning that each side presented expert testimony as to why the plaintiff developed his lung disease. The defense experts’ position was that it was caused by an auto-immune disorder that had nothing to do with their product. The plaintiff’s expert, on the other hand, claimed that the disease was caused by his exposure to the chemical that was found in the defendant’s popcorn.