South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Florida Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court Decision in Wrongful Death Case

Published on: January 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 wrongful death complaint between Appellants, known as “the School” and Appellee, the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the School for wrongful death after her 13-year-old son committed suicide following the School’s request that he withdraw from the school for selling a cape pen to a classmate. The School filed a motion to dismiss or compel arbitration. The appeals court reversed the lower court decision, ruling that an order denying the School’s motion to dismiss or compel arbitration is reversed.

The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the School violated its policies and procedures as well as a common law duty to assess and provide suicide prevention and crisis support to a disciplined student. The complaint further alleged that the School was negligent for failing to conduct a full investigation and imposing a punishment that had no basis in its policies and procedures. Notably, at least twenty of the plaintiff’s allegations implicated the School’s investigation of the incident and the appropriateness of the School’s disciplinary measures.

The School moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration pursuant to the enrollment contract that the plaintiff signed when the child was admitted to the school. The enrollment contract provides that “in the event of a disagreement with [the school], or if I have a legal claim against [the school], I agree to address any such disagreement or claim through the process of conflict resolution, including Christian mediation and binding arbitration as outlined in the Parent/Student Handbook.” Additionally, the handbook contained a section prohibiting vape pens and provided that possession or use of a vape pen will result in the termination of enrollment. Ultimately, the trial court denied the School’s motion, concluding that the plaintiff’s son’s death did not arise out of her child’s enrollment at the school.

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court Decision in Workers’ Compensation Case

Published on: January 21, 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 an employer and an employee, with one of the justices concurring in part and dissenting in part. The claimant is an employee of Brevard County Fire and Rescue seeking compensation for treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) found that the accident in question did not give rise to any need for treatment due to PTSD or any other compensable mental injury. The claimant argued on appeal that first responder claimants can seek workers’ compensation benefits for PTSD under either § 112.1815(2)(a)3 or paragraph (5), or both.

The majority on the court of appeals affirmed the lower court ruling. While the majority agreed with the claimant’s argument that first responder claimants can seek workers’ compensation benefits for PTSD under either § 112.1815(2)(a)3 or paragraph (5), or both, they found that the availability of these claims did not alter the outcome in this case. However, one member of the appeals panel concurred with the majority in part and dissented in part. The dissent engages with the issue of first impression, in this case, establishing the burden of proof that first responders must meet to establish entitlement to medical benefits only for mental or nervous injuries, such as PTSD, arising from their employment where no physical injury accompanies the injury.

The dissent found that the JCC erred in concluding that the only path for first responders to establish the compensability of a mental or nervous injury such as PTSD was via subsection 112.1815(5), Florida Statutes, which was enacted in 2018 to allow for medical and indemnity benefits for PTSD arising out of employment involving eleven specific events. Instead, the plain language of subsection (5) states that it applies to PTSD claims “notwithstanding sub-subparagraph (2)(a)3.” and related statutes, which is a legislative acknowledgment that both provisions were intended to co-exist. Subsection (5) supplements and complements sub-subparagraph (2)(a)3. For this reason, the claimant was entitled to seek medical benefits (but not indemnity benefits) under sub-subparagraph (2)(a)3. The opinion goes on to state that the JCC erroneously concluded that even if a PTSD claim could be brought under sub-subparagraph (2)(a)3., the claimant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of his claimed injury. However, this standard of proof is specified by statute for only situations where the mental injury arises from a physical injury. In the case here, the default standard is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the claimant’s claim should be reevaluated on remand under the proper standard.

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court Decision in Premise Liability Case

Published on: January 11, 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 duty to warn or duty of reasonable care premise liability action between a plaintiff that was a customer in a store and the defendant, the company operating the store. The suit resulted from an incident where the plaintiff tripped inside the store. The trial court found in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff due to an open and obvious condition. In Florida, the open and obvious doctrine provides that a landowner is not liable for injuries and harm caused by a dangerous condition of their land when the danger is known or obvious unless the landowner would anticipate those injuries.

A recent state supreme court case explored the issue of the open and obvious doctrine when a plaintiff sued a church after tripping on the top step of a flight of stairs. In that case, the court ruled that due to the fact that the plaintiff had used those stairs just minutes before and due to the fact that the top step was made from different material and looked different from the other steps, the danger was open and obvious, and therefore the defendant was not liable for the injury.

While the open and obvious doctrine can prevent plaintiffs from successfully holding landowners fully accountable for injuries in Florida, there are other ways to make sure injured parties are properly compensated. Florida landowners are still required to maintain their land and the premises in a safe condition. The courts of Florida have ruled that landowners can still be at fault for failing to maintain a safe premises, even if an obvious or open danger means they do not need to warn others. Specifically, even in circumstances that are open or obvious, property owners should anticipate that people on the property will encounter the hazard, and subsequently can be found negligent for failing to maintain the premises safely. In such a situation, the plaintiff may be found to have contributed to their own injury, but the landowner can still be apportioned blame.

Wedding Guest Sues Bride and Caterer for “Poisonous” Marijuana-Laced Wedding Food

Published on: January 11, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Wedding guests are generally subject to the desires of the bride and groom when it comes to the food and drinks served at a wedding. Guests with dietary restrictions or strong food preferences may need to avoid certain wedding foods, or even skip out on a reception entirely if an undesired or dangerous food is on the menu. For party guests to make an informed decision about whether to eat the food that is offered, the guests should be made aware of what exactly is on the menu. A Florida wedding guest has recently filed a lawsuit against both the bride and a catering company for serving marijuana-laced food at the wedding without the guests’ consent.

According to a recently published local news report discussing the lawsuit, the plaintiff was a guest at the defendant’s wedding held in the Orlando area in February 2022. The bride hired the other defendant, a catering company, to serve food at the wedding reception. The plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges that the wedding guests were not notified that there would be any drugs or other adulterants added to the wedding food, but the plaintiff and other guests reportedly began to feel ill after consuming the wedding food. Other guests identified the feeling as marijuana intoxication, and authorities were called to the scene. Several wedding guests were treated for the intoxication, with some reportedly being hospitalized. Police took some of the food samples into evidence, and it was later confirmed that the food contained highly intoxicating levels of marijuana. The bride and the caterer were later arrested on drug and criminal negligence charges.

The plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges that the bride and caterer were negligent in serving intoxicating drugs to wedding guests without their consent. The lawsuit claims that the plaintiff suffered from marijuana poisoning by consuming the food, and suffered serious damages as a result. Poisonings are the leading cause of deaths and hospitalizations among Florida residents aged 25-54 years old, with many of these events resulting from the consumption of illegal or improperly administered drugs. Poisoning hospitalizations also occur as a result of chemical exposure and foodborne illness. Florida residents who have been poisoned by another, whether intentionally or negligently, may have a cause of action for damages against the other party. An aggrieved party can pursue a Florida personal injury claim to hold the other party accountable for their actions and receive compensation for the negative effects of the poisoning.

Wrong-Way Driver on I-95 Causes Devastating Crash in Palm Beach County

Published on: January 1, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Florida and the United States, drivers almost always are required to drive on the right-hand side of the road. This has been the practice since the days of the horse and carriage, and generally, it is easily followed by everyone on the road. As cities have grown and traffic control has become more complicated, the chances of wrong-way accidents have increased. One-way streets and divided highways can confuse some drivers and result in them traveling the wrong way into head-on traffic. A man was recently killed in Palm Beach County when he entered Interstate 95 going the wrong way and got into a head-on collision with another vehicle.

According to a local news report discussing the recent crash, a 26-year-old man driving a Toyota Corolla entered the I-95 northbound traffic lanes from the wrong direction on the 6th Avenue exit in Lake Worth Beach at around 4:00 AM on December 2nd. The wrong-way driver traveled a short distance on the interstate and then crashed head-on into a Chevrolet Silverado that was traveling northbound. Emergency crews responded quickly to the crash, but the driver of the Toyota was pronounced dead at the scene. The driver of the Chevrolet was transported to a local hospital with life-threatening injuries.

The design and construction of freeway entrances, exits, and interchanges are not consistent across our state. Drivers approaching an unfamiliar traffic feature have a duty to pay attention to the signage and instructions and remain on the correct side of the road while getting on the freeway. Drivers who fail to abide by traffic rules and cause an accident can be found civilly, and even criminally liable for the consequences of their behavior. If an at-fault driver is killed in a crash, their insurance company and estate may be held civilly liable for injuries caused to other drivers involved in the crash. Florida law does not require motorists to obtain bodily injury liability coverage, however, most drivers do so. Because not all drivers in the state have liability converge, we recommend drivers obtain coverage for uninsured/underinsured on their own policies.

Orlando Test Drive Ends Tragically Ends in Woman’s Death

Published on: January 1, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When a prospective car purchaser wants to try out a vehicle and go for a test drive, it can sometimes become a dangerous situation. Test drivers may not have experience driving the type of vehicle that they are trying out. Furthermore, the experience of test driving a vehicle can be distracting, as the driver is often trying to evaluate the car quickly, while performing a test drive that may include a dealership representative in the vehicle, further increasing the distraction. Last month, an Orlando test drive turned deadly when a prospective car purchaser was struck by another vehicle while entering the dealership upon completing the test drive.

According to a local news report discussing the accident, an elderly couple visited an Orlando dealership last month to test drive a Nissan SUV. The 86-year-old husband was driving the vehicle, his 76-year-old wife was in the passenger seat, and a dealership representative was riding in the back seat. When the driver attempted to make a left turn back into the dealership, he did so into the oncoming path of another SUV, which struck the Nissan near the front passenger side, causing the SUV to roll over onto its side. Emergency crews responded to the scene, where the 76-year-old woman was declared dead. The husband suffered minor injuries, and the dealership representative was not injured in the crash. According to the news report, all people involved in the accident were wearing seatbelts at the time of the crash.

As drivers get older, their driving abilities generally diminish with time. It can be tough for authorities and the family members of aging drivers to assert that the driver may no longer be able to safely operate a vehicle. Florida has enacted the “GrandDriver program” to offer resources and support (as well as additional rules) for drivers over 80 years old and their families. Florida drivers over 80 years old must renew their license every 6 years (compared to every 8 years for younger drivers), and pass a Mature Driver Vision Test at an approved location. These additional rules have been enacted to help mitigate the dangers of allowing aging drivers to retain their driving privileges.

Man Killed While Delivering Bikes Due to Missing Stop Sign

Published on: December 23, 2022 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When a missing street sign causes a car accident, it becomes abundantly clear how important street signs and properly working traffic lights are in road safety. Road signs and traffic lights exist to keep drivers safe by regulating traffic, alerting drivers to changing road conditions, or providing warnings, such as suggested speed limits when driving on a ramp. Missing road signs can pose serious risks because if a stop sign is missing from an intersection, it can lead drivers to keep going through the intersection without stopping, which may lead to accidents. Other important road signs, such as construction zone road signs, can help alert drivers to the fact that they should slow down due to construction ahead, and when these signs are missing, drivers will not know to slow down, which can lead to injuries. In addition, signs that alert drivers that a road is one-way, or even of speed limits, play an important role in regulating traffic and ensuring that road users remain safe while traveling.

According to a recent news report, a Michigan army veteran was tragically killed in Punta Gorda, Florida, while delivering free bikes to children in Florida affected by Hurricane Ian. The veteran was known for his passion for fixing bikes, creating Build a Bicycle – Bicycle Therapy, a shop where he fixed bikes, sold new bicycles and gave many away for free. He was driving a pickup truck with a trailer of bikes when he drove through an intersection that was missing a stop sign due to Hurricane Ian.

If a car accident occurs as a result of a missing road sign, it can be important to connect with an experienced car accident lawyer to help you navigate your case. In some instances, you may be able to hold whoever is responsible for maintaining the sign responsible for the fact that the road sign is missing, and this may be the local government or a company. It can be helpful to gather evidence to build your case, which can include having a lawyer who can help you investigate the accident, including what caused the accident, and taking photos of where the signage was missing. Because various circumstances could lead to a missing road sign, including natural disasters, it can be useful to talk through your possible claims with a lawyer who is an expert in car accident cases.

Two Dead In Orange County Crash Involving Northbound and Southbound Vehicles

Published on: December 23, 2022 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

It is no surprise that after a car accident, individuals have to juggle a lot. Whether it is figuring out insurance claims, dealing with medical expenses, or deciding whether to file a lawsuit and how to do so, the many decisions that follow a car accident can leave many dealing with a high level of stress.

According to a recent news report, a 53-year-old woman and a 66-year-old man died after a car collision in Orange County. The 53-year-old woman was traveling southbound and crossed over the median for unknown reasons. Her car crashed into a Chevrolet Malibu that the 66-year-old Orlando man was driving. The man was traveling northbound and swerved right in an attempt to avoid the collision, but the woman’s van struck the front left of his vehicle. Both drivers were taken to a local hospital, where they were pronounced dead on the scene. The crash is still under investigation.

After a car accident, it is important to seek any medical treatment that may be necessary. After ensuring that your medical needs are tended to, you may be thinking about the next steps, which may include filing a lawsuit to seek compensation for your injuries. It is important to contact your insurance to file a claim and go through the next steps with your insurance company. It can also be extremely helpful to connect with an experienced car accident attorney who can then talk you through the steps of filing a lawsuit. If at the scene of the accident, you were able to take photos, gather contact information and/or statements from any witnesses, and document any other important details from the car accident, this can be helpful information to pass on to your accident attorney. In addition, every state has a statute of limitations for filing car accident suits, which is the deadline by which a person must file a lawsuit. Generally, you have four years from the date of the car accident in that you were injured in to file a lawsuit in the state of Florida. This is one of the many important factors to consider when thinking about filing a lawsuit. Connect with an expert lawyer in car accident cases who can help walk you through your case.

Seeking Punitive Damages in a Florida Negligence Claim

Published on: December 20, 2022 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida negligence law allows for several different types of damages to be awarded in a negligence case. The primary damages awarded are known as compensatory damages. Compensatory damages are awarded to a victim to compensate them for the economic costs related to an injury. These costs could include medical bills, missed work, and property damage. Special damages, sometimes referred to as “noneconomic damages,” can be awarded to compensate victims for other harm related to an accident, such as pain and suffering or emotional distress. Courts also may award punitive damages to a plaintiff, which are designed to punish a defendant for especially egregious conduct that resulted in harm to a plaintiff. A Florida appellate court recently rejected a plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages in a breach of contract claim that alleged gross negligence.

The plaintiffs in the recently decided case rented an apartment from the defendant. Based on poor living conditions and possibly harm and injury therefrom, the plaintiffs filed a breach of contract claim against the defendant, seeking financial damages for the defendant’s failure to market a safe and livable property for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs requested punitive damages in the count of the complaint which alleged gross negligence by the defendant. The defendant’s attorneys objected to the damage request, arguing that such damages can only be awarded as part of an independent tort (negligence) claim, and not under a breach of contract allegation. The trial court allowed the plaintiff’s claim to proceed, finding that the “gross negligence” allegation was enough to meet the requirement.

The defendant appealed the decision to the Florida Court of Appeal, where the trial court’s ruling was reversed. The appellate court reiterated that punitive damages are not awardable in breach of contract cases unless an independent tort claim is made as well. The court found that an allegation of “gross negligence” contained within a breach of contract claim is not enough to satisfy this requirement. As a result of the appellate ruling, the plaintiff’s punitive damage claim will not reach the jury if the case goes to trial.

Appellate Panel Divided by Attack on Plaintiff’s Credibility in Recent Personal Injury Case

Published on: December 20, 2022 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Plaintiffs who make a premises liability or other personal injury claim in Florida are often required to testify at the trial. A victim’s testimony can be used to describe how an injury occurred or to explain the effects that an injury has had on their quality of life. In cases of injuries with no eyewitnesses, surveillance footage, or other documentary evidence of a plaintiff’s injury, the plaintiff’s testimony can be the most crucial evidence in the case. Because a jury often decides cases based on the credibility and trustworthiness of a witness, defendants will often try to smear a plaintiff’s credibility so that a jury will not believe the testimony. The Florida Court of Appeal recently affirmed a trial judge’s ruling, which allowed the defendant’s counsel to attack the credibility of a personal injury plaintiff during cross-examination.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case was allegedly injured in a slip and fall incident at the defendant’s retail store. According to the facts discussed in the judicial opinion, the alleged slip-and-fall was not caught on camera, and the plaintiff’s credibility was a central feature of the trial. Before trial, the defense had asked the plaintiff’s attorney to furnish income and other financial information as part of the discovery process. The plaintiff’s attorney refused the request, responding that the requested information was not relevant to the plaintiff’s claims.

At trial, the plaintiff testified about what happened on the day of the incident. Defense counsel cross-examined the plaintiff, bringing up that their attorney refused to supply the requested income information. The questions were permitted despite the plaintiff’s objection that the questioning was irrelevant and damaged the plaintiff’s credibility. After the trial, the jury came back with a verdict in favor of the defendant.