Truck Accident

Florida Court Addresses Transfer of Duties in Trucking Accident Lawsuit

Published on: December 20, 2019 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

An appellate court in Florida recently released an opinion addressing issues that frequently arise in South Florida truck accident cases. The case arose after a woman suffered severe injuries when a trailer flew off a truck and collided with her vehicle. The woman filed a lawsuit against various parties, including the trucking company as well as the automotive company that installed the wheels on the trailer. After amending her complaints, the trucking company was the only defendant remaining. At this point, the trucking company moved to dismiss the claim, alleging that their duty to maintain the truck was a delegable one, and therefore the company was not liable for the injuries that the plaintiff sustained.

The trucking company argued that they were not negligent because they conducted all relevant and applicable safety inspections, and they did not know that the automotive company was negligent in their repair. The woman argued that the company’s duty to maintain and repair its fleet was non-delegable.

Under Florida law, when a person suffers injuries because of a trucking accident, various parties may be liable. Some common defendants in Florida trucking accidents are the truck driver, the truck company, manufacturers of trucking component parts, and mechanics who worked on the vehicle. Although all of these parties may owe the victim a duty of care, issues arise when determining which parties breached that duty. Many times, defendants will argue that they are not responsible because they delegated a duty that was owed to the plaintiff to another party, and that other party should be accountable for the injuries that the victim suffered.

Recovering after a Florida DUI Truck Accident

Published on: September 11, 2019 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

It is hard to understand, given the wealth of knowledge illustrating the dangers of drunk driving, why anyone would drive after having too much to drink. However, it happens all the time. In Florida, there were over 5,000 Florida drunk driving accidents in 2017 alone. Of those accidents, 350 resulted in at least one death.

Florida truck accidents involving an intoxicated driver are more common than many motorists believe. One reason for this is that truck drivers spend long hours on the road, and often take various substances to stay awake. Aside from alcohol, the three most common drugs used by truck drivers are marijuana, amphetamines, and cocaine. Each of these drugs tends to cause a driver to be more alert initially; however, as the drug wears off, truck drivers may feel tired or lethargic.

Taking drugs while driving a large truck increases several risks. First, the mind-altering effect the drug has on the driver can decrease reaction time and reduce cognitive functioning overall. And second, once the drug wears off, the risk of a Florida drowsy driving accident increases.

Intermediate Appellate Court Certifies Question to Florida Supreme Court in Recent Truck Accident Case

Published on: August 14, 2019 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Last month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a Florida truck accident case seeking clarification from the state’s high court. The Fifth District Court of Appeal released the opinion, asking the Florida Supreme Court whether there should be a different summary judgment standard involving video evidence.

Summary judgment is a stage in which either party can ask the judge to enter judgment in their favor based on the other side’s inability to succeed at trial. When reviewing a party’s motion for summary judgment, the court considers all the evidence that is not in dispute and applies the applicable law to those facts. If the court determines that the law favors the moving party, it will grant that party’s motion for summary judgment, avoiding the need for a trial. Of course, if there is conflicting evidence relating to a material issue in the case, summary judgment is not appropriate, and the case must be submitted to a jury. The jury will then resolve the factual issues, and the court will instruct the jury how it should rule based on how the jury decides the issues.

This case presented an issue that arises with increasing frequency; how courts should handle conflicting evidence in the summary judgment stage when one party presents video evidence. The facts of the case are explained in the court’s opinion as follows: A man was driving on the highway when he rear-ended a semi-truck. The man died, and his estate filed a Florida wrongful death case against the truck driver.

Employer Liability in Florida Trucking Accidents

Published on: January 31, 2019 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Determining which parties to name as defendants in a Florida trucking accident is a crucial decision that must be made early on in the process. Of course, an obvious choice is to name the driver of the truck involved in the accident. However, Florida truck accident victims would be wise to consider whether additional parties may also be liable for their injuries.

As a general rule, employers are vicariously liable for the negligent actions of their employees so long as, at the time of the accident, the employee was acting within the scope of their employment. However, this only applies when the truck driver and the trucking company have an employee/employer relationship. If the truck driver is an independent contractor, the contracting company will likely not be held liable for the driver’s actions. Thus, the determination of whether a truck driver is an employee or a contractor commonly comes up in Florida truck accident cases.

A recent state appellate decision illustrates how courts analyze claims against trucking companies.

Can a Court Exclude Relevant Evidence from a Florida Personal Injury Trial?

Published on: January 7, 2019 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In general, all relevant evidence is admissible in a Florida personal injury lawsuit. The Florida Rules of Evidence define relevant evidence as any evidence “tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” Thus, under the general rule, almost all of the evidence a party would hope to use at trial would be considered relevant.

Merely because evidence is relevant, however, does not mean that it will be admissible because the evidence may be precluded under another rule of evidence. Florida Rule of Evidence 90.403, which is based on Federal Rule of Evidence 403, is among the most important rules of evidence used by parties. Florida’s Rule 90.403 states that “relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

It is important to note that not all prejudice is considered to be unfair. The type of prejudice that courts are concerned with is that which will allow or encourage jurors to base their decision on something other than the issues involved in the case. A recent state appellate opinion is a good illustration of this concept.

Construction Zone Accident Results in $3 Million Verdict for Injury Victim

Published on: December 3, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Not long ago, a man who was injured after he was involved in an accident with a construction vehicle was awarded $3 million after a jury trial. In a recent opinion, an appellate court affirmed the jury’s verdict.

The case presents several interesting issues for Florida truck accident victims, or those who have been injured in other Florida motor vehicle accidents. Most importantly, the case discusses how courts deal with arguments that the plaintiff shared blame in causing the accident that resulted in their injuries.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was driving in a construction zone when he came upon a stopped or slow-moving construction vehicle. The plaintiff decided to pass the vehicle by crossing the double-yellow line. However, as the plaintiff attempted to pass the construction vehicle, it made a sharp left turn, colliding with the plaintiff’s car.

Court Precludes Expert Testimony in Recent Product Liability Case

Published on: September 17, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case discussing the admissibility of the plaintiff’s proposed expert-witness testimony. The case raised an important issue that many Florida personal injury plaintiffs face when dealing with concepts that are beyond the scope of the common understanding of jurors and require an expert’s testimony.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and her infant son were involved in an accident when a northbound semi-truck made a left in front of the plaintiff’s southbound vehicle. The plaintiff’s car crashed into the side of the semi-truck, and became wedged underneath the truck. The plaintiff filed a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of the trailer, arguing that her injuries were made worse by the fact that the truck did not have a side-underride guard. One of the elements the plaintiffs needed to establish to prove their case was whether there was “an alternative safer design” that was “practical under the circumstances.”

The plaintiff arranged to have two experts testify that, had the manufacturer installed telescoping side-underride guards, her vehicle would not likely have been wedged underneath the truck. While side-underride guards have existed for some time, telescoping side-underride guards have not yet been manufactured and have only been tested through computer simulations. Notably, due to the nature of the accident, the opinion of the plaintiff’s experts was that only a telescoping side-underride guard would have prevented or reduced the plaintiff’s injuries. This was due to the positioning of the truck’s rear axle at the time of the accident.

Court Limits Truck Owner’s Liability, Finding that He Loaned Truck to At-Fault Driver

Published on: July 6, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Under Florida’s dangerous-instrumentality doctrine, a vehicle owner who entrusts his or her vehicle to another person who negligently causes an accident can be held liable for any injuries. Essentially, this doctrine holds the owners of dangerous instrumentalities – including motor vehicles – liable when they loan the vehicle to another person who causes an accident. Importantly, there does not need to be any showing that the vehicle owner was negligent in loaning the vehicle to the at-fault driver.Florida law limits an owner’s liability under the dangerous-instrumentality doctrine to $100,000. A recent case in front of a Florida appellate court illustrates how a non-negligent owner can be held liable for injuries, up to the statutory maximum, under the dangerous-instrumentality doctrine.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the parents of a woman who was killed when she was rear-ended by a truck that was driven by one defendant and owned by another defendant. Both of the defendants were present in the truck at the time of the accident. The owner of the truck had previously been driving but asked his passenger to take over control of the truck while he took a nap in the back.

Truck Accident Survivor Receives $15 Million Following Jury Trial

Published on: February 6, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a Georgia jury awarded a woman $15 million in financial compensation for the injuries she received in an April 2015 truck accident. According to a news report covering the recent verdict, the case proceeded to trial after the accident victim and the trucking company were unable to reach a mutually acceptable result in pre-trial negotiations.The accident giving rise to the case occurred on a Georgia highway. A car full of six Louisiana nursing students was on their way to their final day of clinical training in a Savannah hospital. Along their way, a traffic jam formed, requiring they come to a complete stop on the highway. After a few seconds of being stopped on the highway, a semi-truck came from behind, ramming into the rear of the students’ vehicle. The truck was traveling at approximately 70 miles per hour. Five of the six students in the car were killed.

A subsequent investigation discovered that the truck driver did not apply the brakes at all in the moments leading up to the accident. The driver later pleaded guilty to five counts of first-degree vehicular manslaughter and received a sentence of five years’ incarceration followed by five years’ probation. The families of the deceased students filed wrongful death cases against the truck driver’s employer. These lawsuits were settled out of court for undisclosed amounts. However, the lone survivor in the car was unable to reach an agreement with the trucking company, which initially only offered to pay her medical expenses.