South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Florida Appeals Court Grants City Sovereign Immunity in Police Officer Car Accident Case

Published on: July 10, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent appeals case, the District Court of Appeals of the State of Florida Fifth District produced an opinion for an appeal involving sovereign immunity for the city of Winter Park in a vicarious liability case involving an off-duty police officer. The plaintiff, a driver involved in the car accident with the police officer, sued the defendant, the city of Winter Park, alleging that Winter Park was vicariously liable for the officer’s purportedly negligent driving. The city of Winter Park moved for summary judgment on sovereign immunity grounds at trial. Following the completion of the discovery process, the trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding that the issue of whether the officer was within the scope of his employment was a fact question. Winter Park then filed a timely appeal.

The incident in question occurred on June 17, 2019, when Officer Rojas, a police officer in Winter Park, was involved in a car accident in Casselberry, a municipality in Seminole County. Officer Rojas receives a “take-home” patrol vehicle to drive to and from work and for use during each shift. On the day of the accident, Officer Rojas testified that his shift ended at 3:00 p.m. and shortly thereafter, he left the police station in his take-home patrol vehicle. Roughly 30 minutes after his shift ended, he was involved in a car accident along his customary route home.

The crash occurred in Casselberry, which is beyond the Winter Park city limits. Officer Rojas was not performing any duties as a police officer following the end of his shift, though he was in his Winter Park police uniform. Ultimately, the trial court ruled that the question of if Officer Rojas was within the scope of his employment was a disputed issue of material fact for a jury to resolve. Winter Park appealed, maintaining that it is entitled to sovereign immunity as a matter of law.

Florida Car Accident Law Round-Up

Published on: June 27, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In 2021, Florida experienced a total of 401,533 car crashes, including 3,445 fatal accidents and 163,961 crashes resulting in injuries. According to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FLHSMV), there have already been 146,074 vehicle crashes in Florida this year. The FLHSMV states that those accidents have resulted in 93,662 total injuries and 1,256 deaths. As vehicle accidents and crashes continue to occur throughout Florida, it is vital to be aware of the car accident laws in effect within the state.

Minimum Insurance Requirement

Florida does not require drivers to have bodily injury liability insurance coverage. This is uncommon as the majority of states require this type of coverage. Bodily injury liability insurance covers injury-related losses that a policyholder causes to other motorists if the policyholder is deemed responsible for the accident. Instead of requiring bodily injury liability insurance, Florida requires motorists to have a minimum of $10,000 in personal injury protection coverage and a minimum of $10,000 in property damage liability coverage. Personal injury protection coverage pays for a policyholder’s own losses following an injury from a collision while property damage liability coverage addresses property damage that the policyholder causes others in a collision.

Mandatory Police Reporting

There is a common misconception that automobile accidents must always be reported to the police. In Florida, drivers involved in a collision are required to report a crash to policy only if one of the following two things are true: (1) the crash caused a minimum of $500 in vehicle or property damage, or (2) the crash caused injury or death. If a crash does not meet either of those criteria, drivers may self-complete a “Driver Report of Traffic Crash Report” or a “Driver Exchange of Information” as detailed by the FLHSMV.

One Killed in Fatal Forklift Incident

Published on: June 18, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Industrial and equipment accidents are serious and can result in severe injuries or even death. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, from 2011 to 2017, over 600 workers were killed in forklift accidents in the United States and over 7,000 workers experienced nonfatal forklift injuries with days away from work every year. Forklift accidents only account for approximately 1% of all warehouse or factory accidents. Unfortunately, due to the dangerous nature of the equipment, forklift incidents are responsible for 11% of all physical injuries in warehouse or factory accidents.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) estimates that more stringent training policies could prevent approximately 70% of forklift accidents in the United States. OSHA also projects that in total, between 35,000 and 62,000 forklift injuries occur each year. Concerningly, it is estimated that 36% of forklift-related deaths are pedestrians. Forklifts are so dangerous in part due to how they are deployed and in part due to how they are constructed. Loads are often carried in front of a forklift, blocking the driver’s view, increasing the chances of an accident. Forklifts are often used to raise heavy loads to considerable heights, resulting in dangerous circumstances. Forklifts also turn using rear wheels, increasing the chances of tipping over during tight turns. Additionally, forklifts can weigh up to 9,000 pounds and reach speeds of 18 miles per hour, making any forklift crash a serious collision. Lastly, forklifts only have breaks on their front wheels, making it harder to stop quickly and safely. A recent news article discussed a fatal forklift accident in Daytona Beach.

According to the news report, the accident happened on Monday, February 13, when a forklift operator moving materials from a truck ran over a woman in her 60s. The worker was part of a team working to repair a building that was damaged in Hurricane Ian. The Public Safety Director, Michael Fowler, stated that the worker did not see the pedestrian past the construction materials, causing him to hit her. According to the article, the driver was navigating using the space between two loads and never saw the pedestrian before hitting her. The woman was killed by the impact. The death has been classified as an industrial incident and will be investigated by the Daytona Beach Shores Public Safety and Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Florida Turnpike Closed Following Head-On Collision

Published on: June 10, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Head-on collisions are some of the most serious and deadly types of car accidents. Head-on car collisions occur when two cars going in opposite directions come into contact, often with devastating consequences. The causes of such crashes are broad, but the resulting crashes are often severe. Occasionally, road design or layout can be responsible, such as if there is inadequate signage or confusing traffic lining on the roads. In some instances, the vehicle manufacturer could be responsible if a vehicle defect causes a crash. However, in most head-on car accidents, at least one of the drivers involved is responsible for the crash. The driver or motorist could be drunk or tired, leaving their lane, resulting in a head-on crash. Determining who is responsible is an essential task when exploring a legal claim for damages. Having a good understanding of the cause of a crash can ensure you recover the maximum compensation for your injury.

According to the Insurance Information Institute (III), head-on collisions accounted for approximately 10% of all fatal motor vehicle accidents in the year 2020. Head-on collisions are extremely dangerous and resulted in 3,621 deaths and thousands more injured throughout 2020 according to the institute. The various causes of head-on collisions range from distracted driving or inhibited driving to reckless driving and fatigue. The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FLHSMV), tracked 32,445 crashes throughout Florida in April 2023. The FLHSMV reports that those accident levels are slightly down from the 35,620 car accidents that occurred in March. A recent news article discusses a serious head-on collision in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

According to the news report, the accident occurred on Friday, April 28, when a white Chevy Camaro heading north crashed into a silver Toyota pickup truck heading south. A member of the highway patrol stated that the Chevy Camaro was in the southbound lanes near Northwest 199th Street when it crashed head-on into the Toyota pickup truck heading south. The highway patrol stated that all of the lanes in both the southbound and northbound directions were closed in the area to allow for the landing of an air rescue helicopter. The helicopter transported the driver of the Chevy Camaro to Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Ryder Trauma Center. The driver of the Chevy Camaro suffered serious injuries while the driver of the Toyota pickup truck had only minor injuries.

Head-On Collision Results in Fatal Florida Crash

Published on: June 4, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FLHSMV), tracked 32,445 crashes throughout Florida in April 2023. The FLHSMV reports that those accident levels are slightly down from the 35,620 car accidents that occurred in March. According to the Insurance Information Institute (III), head-on collisions accounted for over 10% of all fatal motor vehicle accidents in 2020. Head-on collisions are extremely dangerous and resulted in 3,621 deaths and thousands more injured throughout 2020 according to the III. Causes for head-on collisions range from distracted driving or inhibited driving to reckless driving and fatigue. Such collisions typically occur when a car crosses into an opposite lane of traffic and strikes a car going in the other direction. A recent news article discusses a fatal head-on collision in Marion County, Florida.

According to the news report, the accident occurred around 11:45 am on Friday, April 28, when a 2006 Chevrolet Trailblazer collided with a 2013 Honda CR-V. A member of the highway patrol stated that the Chevrolet Trailblazer was heading East on Highway 387 when it went left of center and struck the Honda CR-V head-on. The driver and both passengers inside the Honda CR-V were all killed in the crash as well as the driver of the Chevrolet Trailblazer. A passenger in the Chevrolet Trailblazer was injured and taken to a nearby hospital for treatment. The Marion County Coroner stated that one of the vehicles had Florida license plates while the other car had Ohio license plates. The identities of the individuals involved in the crash had not been revealed at the time of publication.

In most head-on car accidents, at least one of the drivers involved is responsible for the crash. If a driver or motorist is drunk or tired and leaves their lane, resulting in a head-on crash, they would be responsible. Occasionally, road design or layout can be responsible, such as if there is inadequate signage or confusing traffic lining on the roads. In some instances, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible if a vehicle defect causes a crash. Determining who is responsible is an essential task when exploring a legal claim for damages. Having a good understanding of the cause of a crash can ensure you recover the maximum compensation for your injury.

Appellate Court Affirms Appeal in Florida Car Accident Case

Published on: May 28, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, the district court of appeals for the State of Florida Fifth District issued an opinion in an appeal involving a negligence claim by the appellant, the plaintiff, against the appellee, First Team Ford, LTD d/b/a Autonation Ford Sanford, a Florida Limited Partnership (the Dealership). Ryan Matthews, the general manager of the Dealership drove a Ford Expedition owned by the dealership home one day. On his drive home, he got in an automobile accident with the plaintiff. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff filed a complaint against Matthews and the Dealership, alleging a negligence claim against Matthews, and a vicarious liability claim against the Dealership. The plaintiff settled with Matthews and the case proceeded solely against the Dealership. At trial, the court entered a final summary judgment in favor of the Dealership.

Facts of the Case

On December 21, 2016, Matthews, the general manager of the Dealership, drove his wife’s vehicle, a Chevy Tahoe, into the dealership. Matthews testified that he brought the Chevy Tahoe into the Dealership to get the oil changed, but also that he was interested in purchasing a Ford Expedition, and used this as an opportunity to test one out. While there, Matthews executed a “Loaned Vehicle Agreement” in order to drive home a Ford Expedition owned by the Dealership. Matthews left the Dealership driving the Ford Expedition. On the drive home, Matthews got into a car accident with the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a complaint against both Matthews and the Dealership, alleging negligence by Matthews and vicarious liability against the Dealership under Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine. Matthews and the plaintiff settled, leaving only the case against the Dealership.

Florida Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court Decision in Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: May 21, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Florida issued an opinion in an appeal involving a nonfinal order granting the appellee, a patient, an amended motion for leave to amend her complaint to state a claim for punitive damages against the appellant, a doctor. In the lawsuit, the patient alleged that the doctor improperly treated her using a medically unnecessary course of radiation after she was referred to him by another physician to treat a lesion on her hand. After discussing various treatments with the doctor, the patient opted for radiation treatment. The patient now alleges that the doctor’s treatment fell “well outside” the standard of care. The trial court allowed the patient to amend her complaint to add a punitive damages claim following a hearing on the motion.

The patient was referred to the doctor following a diagnosis of a lesion on her hand as squamous cell carcinoma by a different physician following a biopsy. The patient disputes whether the diagnosis was correct. After meeting with the doctor and discussing various treatment options, the patient opted for a radiation treatment plan. In the course of obtaining the patient’s informed consent, the doctor informed her that surgery was an option, but it would likely impact her ability to maintain her current lifestyle as an avid golfer. The patient agreed to the treatment plan offered by the doctor, which called for radiation treatment twice a day, with treatments sometimes occurring as little as forty-five minutes apart. The doctor alleges that he prescribes this protocol to all of his patients undergoing radiation therapy.

At trial, the patient subsequently sought leave to amend her complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages. She asserts that the radiation treatment that she received from the doctor was not recognized as acceptable in the medical community and that the doctor unnecessarily subjected her to an increased risk of cancer in her lifetime from the radiation for his own financial gain. In making this claim, the patient stated that the doctor’s actions amounted to more than mere negligence, and instead constituted behavior reflecting a conscious disregard for her life and safety. The patient included three items of evidence: 1) an attestation by her expert stating that the doctor’s treatment fell “way outside” of the standard of care; 2) the doctor’s deposition; and 3) documents of two federal cases involving the doctor that included allegations of Medicare fraud and obstruction of a criminal health care investigation. At trial, the court allowed the patient to amend her complaint to add the punitive damages claim.

Florida Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court Decision in Housekeeper’s Workers’ Compensation Case

Published on: May 17, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, the First District Court of Appeals in Florida issued an opinion in an appeal involving a benefits dispute between a housekeeper and an employer. The appellee filed a petition for benefits and alleged injury while “house keeping” for the appellant. The appellant moved for a summary final order on the grounds that domestic servants in private homes are expressly excluded from the definition of employment under section 440.02(17)(c)1., Florida Statutes. The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCCs) denied the appellant’s motion, and the appellant appealed.

The appellate decision states that JCCs are “vested only with certain limited quasi-judicial powers relating to the adjudication of claims for compensation and benefits.” Given that, JCCs do not have inherent judicial powers but, instead, only have the power expressly conferred by Chapter 440 in Florida. The appeals court further stated that in order for an individual to be considered an “employee” under the Workers’ Compensation Laws of Florida, chapter 440 states “Employment” is defined as ’“all private employments in which four or more employees are employed by the same employer,”’ but specifically excludes housekeeping services. The statute states, ‘“‘Employment’ does not include service by or as . . . domestic servants in private homes.”’

The appellate opinion further states that in her motion for summary final order, the appellant attached an affidavit stating that she does not operate a business at her private residence, does not employ four or more individuals at her private residence, and does not carry a workers’ compensation insurance policy. Affidavits are allowed to be considered to determine subject matter jurisdiction. Once the appellant filed her motion with her affidavit demonstrating that the OJCC did not have subject jurisdiction, the burden shifted to the appellee to provide an affidavit that did establish subject matter jurisdiction of the JCC. The appellee did not provide an affidavit but instead stated that the appellant’s affidavit was “unauthenticated hearsay” and that “reliance on an affidavit is not a sufficient basis to merit entry of Summary Final Order.”

Eleventh Circuit Reverses Lower Court Decision Involving the Definition of a “Land Motor Vehicle

Published on: May 10, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in an appeal involving a dispute regarding the definition of a land motor vehicle in an insurance policy. The plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), sued the defendant, an individual with a car insurance policy with State Farm after the defendant filed a claim when she was struck by an uninsured driver of an electric motorized scooter. State Farm denied the defendant’s claim and then sued, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Policy provided no coverage. Both parties moved for summary judgment. At trial, the district court denied the defendant’s motion and granted summary judgment in part to State Farm. The plaintiff then filed a timely appeal.

The incident that triggered this case occurred on a Florida highway when the defendant’s insured Nissan Altima was struck by a driver operating a Razor Pocket Mod scooter (the Scooter). The Scooter had a top speed of 15 mph with a total battery life of 40 minutes of continuous ride time. The Scooter was not manufactured with a taillight, brake lights, turn signals, or exterior mirrors, and no such equipment had been added. The defendant suffered serious injuries to her neck, back, and knee, with surgery expected as a result of the crash. The Nissan Altima sustained a cracked headlight and fog light, a crushed front bumper and fender, and a cracked passenger side mirror.

Following the crash, the defendant submitted a claim to State Farm for UM coverage in the amount of $100,000. State Farm denied the claim, stating that the Scooter was not an “uninsured motor vehicle” under the policy. The State Farm insurance policy stated that it would “pay compensatory damages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle.

Florida Legislature Enacts Sweeping Personal Injury Reforms

Published on: April 30, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

On March 24, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a far-reaching tort reform bill into law. The new law enacts several major changes to the Florida negligence liability system, the standard for bad-faith insurance claims, and the use of contingency-fee multipliers when calculating attorneys’ fees. Each of these changes directly influences how plaintiffs are able to pursue their claims in Florida moving forward. The announcement of the changes triggered a rush to the courthouses with negligence lawsuits in advance of its effective date, suggesting that the bill will curtain the overall tort liability landscape throughout the state.

Modified Comparative Negligence

The headline of the changes enacted by the Florida tort reform bill is the statewide shift from a pure comparative negligence system to a modified comparative negligence system. Under the old pure comparative negligence system, a plaintiff could recover an amount in proportion to the defendants’ percentage of responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries regardless of the plaintiff’s liability. In practice, that meant that if a defendant was 30% responsible for a plaintiff’s injuries, the plaintiff could recover 30% of the damages associated with the injury from the defendant, even if the plaintiff was 70% liable. Under the old system, the plaintiff had four years to file a negligence lawsuit.

Under the new system, a plaintiff is able to recover in proportion to the defendants’ percentage of responsibility only if the plaintiff’s own share of responsibility is 50% or less. Meaning that if a plaintiff is more than 50% liable, the plaintiff cannot recover from the defendant. Additionally, the plaintiff has two years to file a negligence lawsuit, not four.