South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

How Workers Compensation Insurance Addresses Seasonal Employment in the Event of a Workplace Injury

Published on: July 16, 2024 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Seasonal employment is a major component of Florida’s economy, drawing thousands of workers each year to a variety of industries. From the bustling tourism sector, where theme parks and resorts require additional staff during peak travel times, to the construction industry, which often ramps up projects to take advantage of favorable weather, seasonal jobs are plentiful. Additionally, Florida’s professional and semi-professional sports teams, including baseball and football, rely heavily on seasonal workers to support their operations. These jobs, while offering valuable opportunities and income, come with risks. Many seasonal roles, especially those in physically demanding fields like construction and sports, can be hazardous, exposing workers to potential injuries.

In Florida, employers are mandated to carry workers’ compensation insurance to protect employees who get injured on the job, and this includes seasonal workers. Workers’ compensation provides essential benefits, such as medical care and wage replacement, to help injured employees recover and support themselves during their time off work. However, the amount of compensation a worker is entitled to can vary significantly. This calculation is often based on “full-time weekly wages,” but this baseline can be adjusted, and the interpretation of this amount can be contentious. Recently, a Florida district court addressed such an issue when an employer challenged the amount awarded to a seasonal professional baseball pitcher who was injured and unable to complete his employment contract.

The pitcher in question was under a contract with a minor league baseball team and earned a salary during the five-month championship season. However, his contract also required him to be available year-round for other activities, such as exhibition games and training. Unfortunately, during one of the championship games, the pitcher sustained a serious shoulder injury, which led him to file a workers’ compensation claim. Initially, the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) calculated his average weekly wage (AWW) based on a full-year salary, attributing his monthly earnings over 12 months, even though his contractual salary only covered the five months of the championship season.

Florida Appeals Court Refuses to Hold Corporation Responsible for Actions of a Negligent Subcontractor

Published on: July 8, 2024 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Florida business owners have a responsibility to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe manner for all who enter. This includes not only ensuring that the physical environment is safe but also addressing security concerns adequately. When businesses hire external security services, they may still be held responsible for the actions of those security companies, especially if the premises are not kept secure. Recently, the Florida Court of Appeal addressed a case involving a national fast food chain where a security guard, hired as an independent contractor, shot and killed a plaintiff’s family member without adequate justification.

According to the facts discussed in the recently released appellate opinion, a disturbance at the restaurant led to the involvement of a security guard who a company contracted by the restaurant hired. The guard, unable to manage the situation, ultimately discharged a firearm, resulting in the death of the plaintiff’s family member. The plaintiff filed a negligence claim, arguing that the larger corporation was liable for the actions of the franchisee and the security contractor. After losing initially at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff appealed the ruling, seeking to hold the larger corporation accountable.

The appellate court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The Court relied on Florida law on vicarious liability and independent contractors in making this decision. Generally, in Florida, a business owner or employer is not held liable for the acts of an independent contractor. This principle includes cases where the contractor fails to uphold the safety standards expected of the business. The appellate court found that the corporation did not breach a non-delegable duty to maintain reasonably safe premises simply because the independent contractor’s guard negligently discharged a firearm. This incident was considered beyond the scope of the corporation’s duty to provide a safe environment for its business invitees.

Florida Appellate Court Affirms Verdict in Auto Accident Case

Published on: June 29, 2024 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

A recent Florida appellate court decision has highlighted the difficulties of many Florida auto accident cases. The court upheld a verdict against the plaintiff, who had argued that the trial court mishandled objections to the defense’s questioning. The appellate court found that these objections did not impact the verdict. Testimonies about inconsistencies between the plaintiff’s trial and deposition statements and expert reports concluded that the plaintiff could have avoided the accident. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s attorney failed to object to witnesses’ testimonies regarding deposition transcripts.

Car accident cases can be extremely complex and challenging. They often require detailed and consistent testimonies and thorough expert analysis. In this case, the plaintiff’s loss underscores the importance of having an experienced personal injury attorney to navigate these difficulties. Expert testimony and identifying and correcting procedural errors are vital in these cases.

The Role of Expert Testimony in Auto Accident Cases

Expert testimony is critical in auto accident cases. Experts provide essential insights into how an accident occurred and whether it could have been prevented. In the recent Florida appellate case, experts analyzed the plaintiff’s speed and concluded that she could have avoided the accident. This testimony was pivotal in the court’s decision to uphold the verdict.

Experts such as accident reconstructionists and medical professionals offer valuable perspectives that lay witnesses cannot provide. Their analysis covers various factors, including vehicle speed, road conditions, driver reaction times, and injury severity. This detailed evidence can determine a case’s outcome.

Florida Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against City of Miami Citing Sovereign Immunity Pre-Suit Notice Requirement

Published on: June 22, 2024 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

In a recent decision, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a lower court’s order that denied the City of Miami’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit based on sovereign immunity. The court explained that the plaintiff did not comply with Florida’s sovereign immunity pre-suit notice requirement, leading the court to side with the City. This ruling highlights the importance of following proper procedures when suing a government entity. If you’re in Miami and considering such a lawsuit, hiring a personal injury attorney can be invaluable.

Cases involving negligent government entities are more common than people think. Whether it’s a car accident involving a city vehicle or a slip and fall on government property, these situations frequently arise. Successfully pursuing these claims requires an experienced Miami personal injury lawyer who understands Florida’s sovereign immunity laws. A knowledgeable attorney can help you navigate these complex cases, ensuring all procedural steps are correctly followed and increasing your chances of a favorable outcome.

Florida’s Sovereign Immunity Statute

Florida’s sovereign immunity statute, specifically Section 768.28(6), sets forth the requirements for suing a government entity. This statute is crucial because it dictates how and when a lawsuit can be brought against a governmental body. One of the primary requirements is that the plaintiff must provide pre-suit notice to the agency being sued. This notice must be given in writing, and the nature of the claim and the amount of compensation demanded must be detailed.

Florida Appeals Court Addresses Going-and-Coming Rule in Car Accident Involving an Injured Minor Child

Published on: June 15, 2024 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

A recent Florida accident case before the Third District Court of Appeal involved a minor child injured in a car accident. The parents of the child appealed the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Royal Plus, Inc. The court evaluated the three-prong test of respondeat superior and concluded that the driver involved in the accident was not acting within the scope of his employment. As a result, Royal Plus was not held vicariously liable for the driver’s alleged negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, reinforcing the application of the going-and-coming rule in Florida. This case highlights how challenging Florida car accident cases can be, making it crucial to have a skilled Miami car accident attorney on your side.

Going-and-Coming Rule in Florida Negligence Lawsuits

The going-and-coming rule is a legal doctrine used in Florida to determine whether an employer can be held liable for the actions of their employees while they are commuting to or from work. This rule generally states that an employer is not liable for the actions of their employees during these commutes. This principle was a key factor in the recent decision by the Third District Court of Appeal.

In the case at hand, the court examined whether the driver was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. To hold an employer liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, three conditions must be met:

The employee’s conduct must be of the kind they are employed to perform;
The conduct must occur substantially within the time and space limits authorized by the employer; and
The conduct must be motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.

In this case, the driver was found not to be acting within the scope of his employment during his commute, leading the court to uphold the summary judgment in favor of Royal Plus. This decision underscores the importance of understanding the going-and-coming rule and its implications in negligence lawsuits.

Florida Appellate Court Upholds Decision in Sovereign Immunity Case Involving Former Miami City Attorney

Published on: June 7, 2024 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

A recent decision by a Florida appellate court underscores the challenges of sovereign immunity cases. The former City Attorney for the City of Miami appealed a lower court’s denial of her motion to dismiss, claiming sovereign immunity. The appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision, allowing the case to proceed because the plaintiff’s complaint included enough details to survive the motion to dismiss.

The court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendant acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, or exhibiting wanton and willful disregard for the plaintiff’s property. This key element helped the plaintiff overcome the motion to dismiss, showing that claims of bad faith or malicious intent can be crucial.

Sovereign immunity cases are notoriously tough. They often involve convoluted legal rules that protect government officials and entities from lawsuits. In this case, the plaintiff successfully provided enough factual allegations to move forward. This decision highlights the importance of detailed and thorough legal work when challenging sovereign immunity claims.

Understanding sovereign immunity is crucial for those facing legal battles with government entities. This case shows that while these cases are complex, they can be won. The appellate court’s ruling demonstrates that with the right legal strategy and careful preparation, plaintiffs can overcome the hurdles of sovereign immunity.

Hit-And-Run Crash Leaves Pedestrian Dead in Little Havana, Miami

Published on: May 31, 2024 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Florida experiences a high level of hit-and-run accidents on a yearly basis. According to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FLHSMV), Florida has seen the number of hit-and-run crashes remain steady, with nearly 25 percent of all crashes involving a hit-and-run. The FLHSMV notes that in 2023, there were 104,273 hit-and-run crashes in Florida, a decrease of less than 1% from 2022. Hit-and-run crashes in 2023 resulted in 271 fatalities and 871 serious bodily injuries. Vulnerable road users are particularly at risk. Of the 271 hit-and-run fatalities in 2023, 159 were pedestrians and 47 were bicyclists (76% of hit-and-run fatalities). Of Florida’s 104,273 hit-and-run crashes last year, 86,987 involved property damage only. In 2023 alone over 81% of hit-and-run fatalities occurred during dawn, dusk, or nighttime conditions. Under Florida law, a driver MUST stop immediately at the scene of a crash on public or private property which results in property damage, injury, or death.

There are many reasons why a driver may flee the scene after an accident. The primary motivating factor is likely that the driver wants to avoid the legal or financial consequences of the accident. Depending on the cause of the crash, drugs, alcohol, outstanding warrants, texting, or distracted driving, there could be serious legal ramifications, leading to the driver leaving the scene. Other reasons, such as lacking proper insurance, holding a commercial driver’s license, or driving the vehicle without permission, could result in significant financial consequences for the driver, leading them to flee the scene. A recent news article described a fatal Florida hit-and-run crash.

According to the news article, police are still searching for a driver who they say ran away from a dangerous crash that left his girlfriend dead and six other people injured near Miami Shores. The man who ran away was driving down Northwest 17th Avenue with his girlfriend. He collided with a black Dodge Ram and a Mercedes-Benz that was going east on Northwest 95th Street. After the crash, the driver ran away — not stopping to help the injured or report the crash, police said. His girlfriend died from the collision, and six others were taken to hospitals in various conditions, from minor to critical.

Teenager Charged in Fatal Florida Car Crash Case

Published on: May 22, 2024 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Unfortunately, Florida consistently ranks highly on the list of states with the most traffic accidents each year. One of the most accurate ways to measure risks of fatal car accidents given disparities in populations of states is to measure deaths per 100 million miles traveled in a state. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Florida has a rate of 1.60 deaths per 100 million miles traveled, placing Florida behind only a handful of other states when it comes to the risk of drivers and passengers being killed in crashes. In Florida, roughly 40% of all crashes result in injuries, but most notably, fatalities stemming from car crashes have been on the rise since 2018. In particular, highway crashes can result in a higher fatality rate. Due to the higher speed limits, accidents on the highway can have more serious implications than slower-speed crashes.

When it comes to crashes and accidents, Florida drivers and passengers should be aware of the factors that can be used to calculate pain and suffering damages after a crash. These elements include but are not limited to the type of injury, recovery time required, necessary treatment, and the severity of the accident. These different factors can help determine the value and compensation in court after an auto accident. Many of these elements are tied together, as the more serious the accident, the more likely the recovery time will be longer. A recent news article discussed a fatal Florida car accident.

According to the news article, a 15-year-old unlicensed driver has been arrested and charged in the fatal Florida crash that killed 2 women and severely injured another. Police said the teen was read his rights on the night of the crash and “Post-Miranda, during a video-recorded interview, the defendant confirmed he was the driver of the Nissan Murano at the time of the traffic crash and that he has never been issued a driver’s license, and that he obtained the keys of the vehicle without the permission from the owner.” Authorities said that through investigative means the Nissan Murano reached speeds of 83 miles per hour, two seconds before impact. Police said the teen, who is not being identified because of his age, has been arrested and charged accordingly. The crash happened Tuesday evening in the 400 block of Southeast 5th Street in Hialeah.

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court, Rejecting Plaintiff’s Claim in Premise Liability Slip-And-Fall Case

Published on: May 14, 2024 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

In a recent case, the District Court of Appeals of the State of Florida Fifth District issued an opinion in an appeal involving a premises liability action arising from a slip-and-fall incident at Joe’s Crab Shack, the defendant. The plaintiff, Jose Duran, dined at Joe’s Crab Shack, and on his way out, slipped and fell. Duran filed suit seeking damages for the injuries sustained from the fall that he claimed resulted from Joe’s Crab Shack’s negligence.

Facts of the Case

Duran and two out-of-town friends went to lunch at Joe’s Crab Shack in Daytona Beach, Florida on March 11, 2018, a busy Sunday afternoon at the restaurant. As Duran was leaving, he slipped and fell in something wet, which he believed to be a “brownish” liquid. Duran fell several feet away from the kitchen door where servers bring drinks on a tray to be served to patrons. John Calo, a regional director for Joe’s Crab Shack who noticed Duran as he entered the restaurant because Duran had a “labored” and “extreme” gait, estimated Duran fell approximately twelve feet from the kitchen door, in the general walkway “in the dining room” area. The record makes clear this location is a high-traffic area heavily traversed by both customers and employees alike because it is a main pathway for customers entering and exiting the dining area of the restaurant.

Duran filed suit seeking damages for the injuries sustained from the fall that he claimed resulted from Joe’s Crab Shack’s negligence. Ultimately, the restaurant moved for summary
judgment, arguing Duran was unable to meet his burden of establishing that the restaurant had actual or constructive knowledge of the presence of the substance that caused his fall.
Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and entered final summary judgment in favor of Joe’s Crab Shack. Duran then filed a timely appeal.

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court Decision in Work Injury Lawsuit

Published on: May 7, 2024 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

In a recent case, the Third District Court of Appeals in Florida issued an opinion in an appeal involving a tort lawsuit filed by the appellee-plaintiff, Giovanni Bastien, against the appellant-defendant, Bottling Group, LLC. Bottling Group appealed from a nonfinal order denying its motion for partial summary judgment in the tort lawsuit filed by Bastien. In their appeal, Bottling Group contends that the trial court erred in finding it was equitably estopped from presenting its workers’ compensation immunity defense. The appellate court was unconvinced, rejecting Bottling Group’s argument and affirming the trial court decision.

Bastien was employed by Bottling Group at a Pepsi packaging and distribution facility in Medley, Florida. He was seriously injured when a coworker, purportedly disgruntled over union activities, shot him several times. While Bastien was recovering in the hospital, he notified his manager that he intended to file a workers’ compensation claim. Bastien was informed that he was not entitled to benefits, and Bottling Group subsequently emailed the compensation carrier, Sedgwick, to oppose his claim. Bastien then received a notice of denial of benefits from the Florida Department of Financial Services Division of Workers’ Compensation. The notice stated that his “claim is denied in its entirety, as not a compensable accident or injury. Injury did not occur in the course or scope of employment. Accident/Injury occurred off premises . . .” Bastien then filed a tort lawsuit in the circuit court against Bottling Group’s parent company, PepsiCo, Inc. PepsiCo moved to dismiss, contending it was entitled to workers’ compensation immunity. Bastien argued that PepsiCo was equitably estopped from asserting immunity. Before the court rendered a ruling on the motion, the parties agreed to the filing of an amended complaint substituting PepsiCo with Bottling Group.

At trial, Bottling Group moved for partial summary judgment on the basis it was entitled to workers’ compensation immunity. Bastien opposed the motion, asserting that estoppel and the international tort exception precluded the operation of immunity. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered a reasoned order denying summary judgment and prohibiting Bottling Group from raising its immunity defense at trial. Bottling Group appealed shortly thereafter.