South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Florida Court Finds Relation-Back Doctrine Permits Injury Lawsuit Against Deceased Defendant

Published on: October 31, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A Florida appellate court recently decided a case addressing whether a trial court erred in dismissing a plaintiff’s car accident lawsuit against a deceased defendant. Four years after the accident, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant in the case passed away three months before the plaintiff’s action. The lower court removed the deceased woman from the filing and substituted the woman with the personal representative of her Estate. In response, the Estate moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the court lacked jurisdiction over the action. Specifically, they argued that the action could not proceed because it named a deceased person as a defendant. Further, they asserted that the complaint could not be amended and relate back to the original filing.

Under Florida law, negligence actions must include a:

A cause of action in negligence;

Do Florida Schools Have a Duty to Children Walking to the Bus Stop?

Published on: October 24, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A Florida District Court issued an opinion addressing whether a School Board is liable for injuries a child suffered while walking to her bus stop. The case arose when a car hit the child while crossing the road to reach her school bus stop. In response to the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the School Board (School) filed a motion for summary judgment asserting sovereign immunity. The trial court denied the motion, and the School appealed.

Sovereign or governmental immunity is a legal concept that protects federal and state governments from certain civil lawsuits. Under Florida law, individuals may commence a tort claim against the government if their employee’s actions caused the plaintiff’s damages. However, the statute only allows these cases in certain situations and imposes strict notice requirements and provides limitations to the damages one can recover against the government.

Typically, governmental entities may be liable if they create a “known, dangerous condition” that may not be readily apparent, and they have knowledge of the presence of individuals likely to suffer injuries. In those cases, the governmental entity has a duty to warn those who might suffer injuries or avert the danger. However, Florida courts have explained that the duty only applies in cases where the condition is “so serious and so inconspicuous” that it essentially amounts to a trap.

Florida Accident Victim Prevails on Appeal Based on Jury Instruction

Published on: October 24, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

An appellate court recently issued a decision in a Florida accident case resulting in serious injuries. The defendant admitted fault and the issues at trial related to damages, causation, and severity of the plaintiff’s injuries. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff but failed to address whether she was entitled to damages for her preexisting condition.

Florida follows the theory of the “eggshell plaintiff.” Under this concept, negligent parties take the injury victim as they found them. This means that the defendant will be liable for the full extent of a plaintiff’s injuries, even if their injuries were more than an average person would experience under similar circumstances. The doctrine applies in cases when an injury:

Activates a latent condition;

Understanding Florida Dog Bite Laws

Published on: October 15, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Although our furry friends are often companions for life, sometimes animals can lead to accidents with significant consequences. When unexpected injuries take place, it is crucial that potential plaintiffs have a full understanding of their rights under Florida law.

In a recent District Court of Appeal case, a Florida court examined a dispute stemming from an alleged dog bite incident. In the case at hand, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s dog caused him to suffer physical and neurological injuries. At trial, the plaintiff and his wife testified that they were watching the dog for a few days when the plaintiff turned his back and the dog ran behind him and knocked him down, rendering him unconscious. Because of other conflicting testimony from both parties, it appeared unclear whether the defendant’s dog or if dogs that the plaintiff also owned caused the plaintiff’s injuries. As a result, the jury rendered a verdict for the defendant and found that the dog was not the legal cause of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries. The plaintiff, however, was later granted a directed verdict and a new trial on the issue of damages.

On appeal, the court reversed the lower court’s directed verdict and sided with the defendants. In directing the trial court to reinstate the jury’s original verdict, the District Court of Appeal stated that testimony introduced at trial equipped the jury to make a decision. Because the evidence presented was ample and provided the jury with the opportunity to accept or reject the testimony presented to them, the jury had a reasonable opportunity to make its conclusions and the trial court erred in overriding the jury’s verdict.

Court Addresses Overbroad Terms in Florida Bad Faith Insurance Case

Published on: October 15, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

An appellate court recently issued an opinion in a bad faith insurance lawsuit stemming from an accident between an 18-year-old driver and a motorcyclist. The accident occurred when the 18-year-old turned into a median in front of the biker. The biker slammed into the driver’s car with such force that the vehicle spun 180 degrees. The biker suffered serious injuries from the collision and was airlifted to a hospital.

The 18-year-old was driving his mother’s car at the time of the accident, and when he called the insurance company, he reported property damage but neglected to report any physical injuries. The insurance company interviewed the driver, who disclosed that the biker suffered injuries, and he indicated that the biker might have been speeding. The preliminary insurance investigation revealed that the accident occurred in a low-speed limit area, the motorcycle left long skid marks, and the driver did not receive a citation. With these facts, the insurance company concluded that the biker was likely contributorily negligent.

About ten days after the accident, the insurance company decided to tender the bodily injury limits to the biker; however, they asked the biker’s attorney if they could inspect the motorcycle. The next day the insurance company delivered a “tender package” to the biker’s attorney. The package included a cover sheet and described the content of the delivery, which included a $50,000 check and a form that released the company of “all claims.” The letter invited the biker’s attorney to edit the release or suggest changes to a release. The biker’s attorney did not address the release but rejected the offer stating the insurance company was trying to take advantage of the biker and his family by including an overbroad release.

Understanding Florida Product Liability Claims

Published on: October 11, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When we buy a product, whether it’s food, an appliance, or a car, we expect and trust that the product will be safe for our use. Sometimes, however, these products can cause property damage or injury, which may mean that you may be eligible to receive compensation. From prescription drugs to negligently manufactured appliances, product liability lawsuits are always available for consumers so that the public can hold manufacturers accountable.

According to a recent news report, a major car accident involving a Tesla is prompting a federal investigation into the vehicle’s new technology and safety for consumers. After the accident killed two people, U.S. safety investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board sent three representatives to specifically look for photos or videos of the crash or the fire that broke out after the initial accident. Because Tesla vehicles are electric do not use gasoline, it is unclear what specifically caused the crash or the fire. It is also unclear whether the vehicle’s automated driving system was activated at the time of the collision, which has been the subject of federal interest in recent years. The report investigators plan to generate will create recommendations to other federal agencies about future safety regulations.

In Florida, there are frequent incidents that give rise to similar product liability claims. These claims, however, are subject to specific laws and requirements that govern product liability lawsuits. Because these cases can often be complex, it is crucial that potential plaintiffs understand the details surrounding filing a product liability lawsuit and what a claim will entail.

Dog Owner Liability for Non-Bite Related Injuries in Florida

Published on: October 11, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, the District Court of Appeal of Florida issued a decision in an appeal involving injuries a woman suffered when a dog ran towards her and her dog. The woman filed a claim against the dog owners under Florida Law Section 767.01. Under the statute, “owners of dogs shall be liable for any damages done by their dogs to a person.” The jury found in favor of the victim and returned a million-dollar verdict, which the defendants appealed. Amongst several issues, the court reviewed how causation played into cases involving non-bite-related injuries.

While prior case law reaffirmed that section 767.01 is a strict liability statute, courts have offered essential caveats to the rule. Specifically, Florida courts reject the view that strict liability for dog owners applies in every case where the dog’s actions are a factor in the injury. As such, the plaintiff must establish that the dog engaged in an affirmative or aggressive act. However, the courts also explained that the imposition of liability might be appropriate when the animal did not touch the plaintiff. Further, Florida courts have found that the common law defenses to a claim apply to Florida dog injury cases.

This case falls squarely within the statute’s provisions involving situations where a dog caused an injury to someone, but not by biting them. Here, the plaintiff’s injuries occurred when she tripped and fell while the dog lunged towards her. The defendant argued that they should be able to present comparative negligence defenses and a third-party negligence defense. The appellate court found that the lower court was correct when it precluded the defendant from presenting a third-party negligence define. However, the deprivation of the defendant’s comparative negligence defense requires a reversal and a new trial on that specific issue.

Understanding the Risks of Jet Skis & Water Runners in Florida

Published on: September 30, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Florida, where sunshine and warm weather attract thousands of tourists and residents to its waters nearly year-round, water activities are a common way to enjoy all that the state has to offer. Unfortunately, water activities involving jet skis and water runners can often pose significant risks to those who operate them—especially if they do not have adequate experience or knowledge of the risks. To best protect yourself on your next vacation, it is important to understand the potential risks of these activities so that you can enjoy your time on the water—but do so safely.

According to a recent local news report, a tragic jet ski crash led to the death of a Florida woman. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission reported that a jet ski occupied by a man and woman was traveling north on Pablo Creek when the driver attempted to navigate the jet ski under a bridge while traveling approximately 20 to 25 miles per hour. The male driver crouched down to drive under the bridge, but his female passenger failed to crouch down and struck her head. After she collided with the bridge, she was thrown into the water. She was pulled from the water and brought on to the shore by the St. Johns County Fire Rescue, where she was pronounced dead. Local authorities report that the accident is still under investigation.

This jet ski accident is just one of many that take place in Florida when the state’s waters are crowded during the warmer months. Although many Floridians are familiar with jet skis, they may not fully understand the risks of operating or owning one, or the corresponding laws.

Florida Appeals Court Upholds Jury Verdict Despite Defendant’s “Admissions”

Published on: September 30, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A Florida appeals court recently considered a Florida car accident case in which the jury had found in the defendant’s favor, despite admissions made by the defendant. The defendant had been driving a car and collided with a motorcycle, resulting in a fatality. The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant and the case went to trial. According to the court’s opinion, prior to the trial, the defendant made some “admissions” in her deposition, which were admitted at the trial. Despite this, the jury found in favor of the defendant, finding she was not the cause of the crash. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the jury’s decision was contrary to the evidence presented at trial and that the jury was bound by the defendant’s admissions.

If a party receives a jury verdict that is not in their favor, the party may be able to appeal the decision and other decisions made by the trial court. On appeal, a Florida appeals court reviews the decisions made by the trial court under different standards, depending on the decision. If a party files a motion for a new trial, the trial court will review the decision to see if it was supported by “competent, substantial evidence,” while considering the court’s observations about the witnesses at trial.

Thus, a trial judge can consider, in light of these observations, whether the jury’s verdict was “unjust” or a “miscarriage of justice.” When an appeals court reviews a denial of a motion for a new trial, the appeals court can only consider whether the trial court “abused its discretion” in denying the motion for a new trial. Thus, the appeals court should only overturn the judge’s decision if the evidence at trial clearly and obviously reflected a verdict in the other party’s favor—only where there is “no rational basis in the evidence to support the verdict.” In addition, if a party appeals a jury’s verdict, an appeals court will consider whether the verdict was “contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.”

Understanding Slip and Fall Accident Lawsuits in Florida

Published on: September 23, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

If you are injured in a slip and fall accident in Florida, it is crucial that you know what options you have to recover. Should you decide to file a personal injury claim, there are various laws that may apply to your case. Because Florida is one of the few states with detailed slip and fall laws, potential plaintiffs are advised to hire an experienced slip and fall or personal injury lawyer to assist them with navigating their lawsuit.

In a recent District Court of Appeal decision, the court considered a slip and fall injury that took place in a Winn-Dixie grocery store in Florida. The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the defendant, Winn-Dixie, alleging that she suffered injury after slipping on liquid detergent on the floor of the grocery store. According to the plaintiff’s testimony, there were no footprints in the detergent, and she had no knowledge of how long the detergent had been on the floor or whether any employees knew of the spill. A Winn-Dixie store manager testified that five minutes before the incident, an employee had checked the area. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of Winn-Dixie, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment to the grocery store because discovery was ongoing and there was an abuse of discretion. The District Court of Appeal disagreed and found no abuse of discretion. Because trial courts can grant a motion for summary judgment despite the pendency of discovery, the lower court did not err in its decision.