South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

What is Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine?

Published on: May 24, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Florida Supreme Court adopted the dangerous instrumentality doctrine in 1920. This doctrine provides: a vehicle owner (and others that own inherently dangerous tools) may be held vicariously liable when he or she consents to let someone drive his vehicle who operates it irresponsibly and causes damages. The doctrine is similar, but separate from, the doctrine of respondeat superior, which imposes liability upon a “principal” for negligent acts of his agent that occur during the course and scope of the agent’s employment.

Parents of minors in Florida must take particular note of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. A parent who signs his or her minor’s application for a driver’s license may be held vicariously liable for the child’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle.

A Florida appellate court recently considered the question of whether application of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine means that a driver can be considered an agent of the car’s owner. This is less complicated than it may sound.

The question came up during a wrongful death lawsuit. A car crash killed both the driver of a vehicle and his passenger when the driver failed to stop at a red light. The passenger’s mother filed a lawsuit against the driver’s estate and the driver’s father, who owned the vehicle. The father was included in the lawsuit under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.

Florida Appellate Court Rules Medical Malpractice Pre-Lawsuit Requirements Not Necessary in a Wrongful Death Action

Published on: May 17, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida recently reviewed a trial court’s dismissal of a wrongful death action for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the pre-lawsuit requirements for medical malpractice cases. In medical malpractice cases, a plaintiff must meet certain requirements, such as investigating before filing suit and giving notice to prospective defendants before filing suit. This case ended well for the plaintiff. However, it is a good example of why it’s so important to hire a personal injury attorney with multiple areas of experience if a loved one is killed in connection with a health care provider or in a context that might give rise to a medical malpractice claim. The rules that must be followed in contexts that overlap multiple practice areas can be tricky to navigate on your own.

The facts giving rise to a lawsuit arose when a 25-year-old pregnant woman visited the hospital complaining of pain. The hospital moved her to the defendant, a behavioral health facility, that evening, but when she arrived she was still complaining of abdominal pain. She was in distress, but over the next two days, the facility acted (and failed to act) in ways that led to her death.

Florida Appellate Court Rules Inconsistent Testimony Is Not Enough to Warrant Dismissal

Published on: May 14, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Gautreaux v. Maya, a Florida appellate court considered a dismissal of a personal injury lawsuit based upon an alleged fraud upon the court. The case arose from an automobile accident. The plaintiff claimed continuing migraine headaches as a result of an accident caused by the defendant’s negligence.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s lawsuit. He claimed that the plaintiff had falsely claimed she never had headaches before the accident. At the motion hearing, the defendant presented deposition testimony to this effect. During the same month, however, a neurologist examined her. The neurologist’s report of the examination revealed that the medical assistant had noted that the plaintiff did not previously have the symptoms of headache.

Florida Appellate Court Reviews Issue of Privacy in Auto Accident Case

Published on: May 10, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A Florida appellate court recently reviewed the issue of when a driver’s personnel file can be compelled for purposes of providing proof in an auto accident case in Walker v. Ruot. That case arose from a car accident in which an employee of Bright House Networks LLC injured the plaintiff couple by rear-ending their vehicle with a Bright House van.

The couple filed a lawsuit alleging negligence against both employee and employer. In the course of the lawsuit, the couple served on the employer a request to produce the personnel file of the driver. The employer objected that the personnel file included information irrelevant to the lawsuit and that producing the personnel file violated the driver’s right to privacy.

The couple filed a motion to compel the personnel file in the lower court. At the hearing for the motion they argued that the information contained in the file might support their claims against the employer for negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, or negligent retention. They also argued it might help them locate the employee to serve him with the lawsuit. The employer again objected as to the relevance of the personnel file, but agreed it did not have standing to assert its employee’s privacy rights.

The trial court did not conduct an in camera (private) inspection. It simply ordered the employer to produce the personnel file and ruled that the documents were relevant. The employer appealed this decision.

Florida Appellate Court Rules on Issue of Jury Selection

Published on: May 8, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Florida District Court of Appeal recently considered a case in which the plaintiff experienced brain damage and permanent disability as a result of medical negligence. The case illustrates the importance of having a good attorney on your side. The plaintiff was incapacitated after a doctor punctured his carotid artery while performing a catheterization procedure. The plaintiff’s guardian filed a lawsuit against the doctor on his behalf.

Before the trial, the court asked the parties’ attorneys to conduct a pre-qualification of the prospective jurors by directing them to answer written questions. The ninth question asked jurors whether they or their family members had ever been a party to a lawsuit. Two jurors answered no.

After a verdict for the plaintiffs, the doctor’s attorney investigated the jurors’ backgrounds. He moved to interview the two jurors who had answered no to the question about prior lawsuit involvement. When he learned that the two jurors had concealed their prior litigation experience when being questioned during the jury selection process, he moved for a new trial.

Florida Appellate Decision Recognizes Importance of Accident Victim’s Right to Seek Counsel

Published on: May 6, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The recent appellate decision in Howard v. Palmer illustrates that the courts recognize the importance of being able to hire an experienced, savvy personal injury attorney right away. In that case, an employee of Groupware ran a stop sign and crashed into the plaintiff’s car. The plaintiff sued for personal injuries in a negligence and vicarious liability lawsuit against both employee and employer.

Before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney made a motion to prevent the defense attorney from presenting evidence that on the day of the accident, the plaintiff contacted an attorney who referred him to a doctor. The plaintiff’s attorney believed that the defense attorney would ask all of the plaintiff’s doctors if they knew he had met with an attorney. The defense confirmed that this was its plan, claiming that plaintiff contacting an attorney the day of the accident created an issue as to whether he actually experienced a permanent injury or if it was a manufactured permanent injury.

The trial court ruled for the plaintiff and prohibited the defense attorney from asking questions about when plaintiff contacted an attorney. Nonetheless, when questioning the plaintiff’s treating physicians, the defense attorney asked one of the doctors if he knew that the plaintiff had seen an attorney before going to the first treating doctor. In a sidebar before the court, the attorneys disagreed about what the court’s ruling had been, and the plaintiff’s counsel brought up the case law he had brought up during the motion. That case law concerned a similar issue in which the court ruled inadmissible any evidence of a plaintiff seeing an attorney three days after an accident.

The trial court in the instant case agreed with the plaintiff and said it would give the jury a curative instruction. The plaintiff’s counsel next asked for a mistrial to sanction defense counsel for violating the court’s order.

Florida Legislative Ban on Texting While Driving

Published on: May 2, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

After four years of thinking about whether or not to ban texting, the Florida legislature has sent a texting-while-driving ban to Florida Governor Rick Scott this week. The House voted 110-6 to pass the ban, while the Senate voted 39-1 to approve the bill that the House had amended.

Critics of the ban say that this ban is a watered-down bill. It makes texting while driving a secondary offense, rather than a primary one. In other words, a driver has to also violate another law in order to be pulled over for texting. A driver who violates the ban for the first time can only be fined $30.00 plus court costs.

The ban permits cellphone records to be used as evidence only if an accident causes a death or personal injury. While this latter point is good news for those who have suffered a personal injury, it does not help those who are killed as a result of others’ negligence in texting while driving. This is a big enough problem in Florida that the ban probably should have been stronger. Thirty-nine states and D.C. already ban texting.

Most of us know someone who texts while he or she drives, even though studies show that texting while driving is incredibly dangerous. One in 7 adults has admitted he or she texts while driving. Texting while driving diverts a driver’s visual, manual and cognitive attention away from the road. In 2011, 23% of car crashes (which comes out to equal approximately 1.3 million) involved cell phone use. That year, 3,331 people in the United States were killed by a distracted driver (not just including those who texted, but anybody whose attention was fixed on something other than driving).

Florida Workers’ Comp Limitation Ruled Unconstitutional

Published on: April 26, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A recent victory for injured Florida workers in a workers’ compensation case, Westphal v. City of St. Petersberg, has upset the insurance industry. In the case, a firefighter challenged an order denying his claim for permanent total disability benefits and the constitutionality of the entire system of workers’ compensation benefits. The firefighter (who was also a paramedic) suffered nerve damage in his legs that required spinal surgery and other treatment during the course of his work.

After the accident that gave rise to this claim, the firefighter’s employer, the City, accepted the claim and paid the firefighter benefits for total temporary disability. The firefighter was forced to abide by the City’s choice of doctors and their medical recommendations, or forgo workers’ compensation benefits that he needed. He required multiple complex surgical procedures.

Even after the most recent surgery, about three years out from the occurrence of the accident, the firefighter was not able to work or obtain employment. He had exhausted the state limit of 104 weeks of temporary benefits, but permanent total disability benefits only kicked in when he reached “maximum medical improvement.” His physicians could not determine his long-range medical prospects and could only speculate. He had not yet reached “maximum medical improvement” but his injuries were so severe that doctors also advised him not to work.

Accordingly, the firefighter was denied permanent total disability benefits. He fell into a “statutory gap” that is not rare, where he had surpassed the number of weeks he could claim temporary total disability, but he had not reached a state where the nature of his permanent disability could be assessed.

Florida Appellate Court Overturns Summary Judgment on Minor’s Medical Malpractice Claim

Published on: April 22, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Moody v. Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc., a Florida appellate court considered a lawsuit for medical malpractice brought on behalf of their minor child, after the trial court granted summary judgment against them. The appellate court looked at two issues. The first was whether the releases of two doctors who treated the minor also released the medical center. The second was whether the medical center had a non-delegable duty to provide competent emergency care to a minor.

The case arose when a minor was hurt in a playground accident. Her mother brought her to a pediatric health clinic where x-rays were ordered. A right hip fracture was diagnosed and the pediatrician recommended that the mother bring her child to the medical center that was a defendant in the lawsuit because he had staff privileges there.

The mother brought her daughter to the emergency department at the medical center and signed a form that claimed to limit the medical center’s liability for acts of independent contractor physicians. The mother later denied ever seeing these terms or agreeing to them.

An orthopedist concluded the minor did not have a hip fracture and therefore, she was discharged. However, her symptoms got worse and she had to be brought to another hospital, which found she had a fractured right hip, septic arthritis, septic shock, right heart failure, MRSA and infections. She was hospitalized for 10 weeks and experienced long-term complications.

Florida Appellate Court Finds No Fraud Upon the Court in a Products Liability Lawsuit

Published on: April 19, 2013 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, recently decided a case involving products liability. The case arose from a 2003 auto accident when a couple’s Ford Aerostar allegedly went from standing still into an acceleration that injured the wife. According to the couple’s lawsuit, Ford knew that the van’s cruise control system was defectively designed such that it allowed electromagnetic interference to cause a sudden acceleration from a standstill position.

In Florida, products liability lawsuits brought 12 years after purchase of a product that has an expected useful life of 10 years or less are barred unless the manufacturer knows of and conceals a defect. The couple claimed their case fell into this exception to the bar because the car company actively concealed the defect. During trial, however, the husband testified he might have touched the accelerator.

Before trial, the couple claimed that the car company committed fraud by concealing its knowledge of the sudden accelerations and by pushing the theory that the husband stepped on the gas instead of the brake, causing the acceleration. The trial court did not rule immediately, instead moving the case into trial. After closing arguments, the jury found for the car company, finding that the company did not put the car on the market with a defect that caused the wife’s injury and that there was no negligence by the car company that caused the wife’s injury.

After trial, the couple filed a request for relief from judgment and a new trial. The basis for these motions was that the car company perpetrated a fraud upon the court by putting forward a pedal misapplication defense while knowing that sudden acceleration in its cars was caused by electromagnetic interference.