South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Navigating Personal Injury Statutes of Limitations Following a Florida Car Accident

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

Sometimes, no matter how careful we are in life, the unexpected happens. When the unexpected results in irreparable or significant injury because of the negligence or recklessness of another party, those who are impacted may have grounds to pursue a personal injury lawsuit for financial compensation.

Navigating the process of filing such a suit and its rules and requirements, however, can often be a daunting task. It is crucial that potential plaintiffs retain an experienced personal injury attorney to garner a general lay of the legal landscape so that they may recover the compensation they deserve.

According to a news report, the parents of a toddler who was injured from a foul ball at a baseball game reached a settlement recently. The baseball game, which took place in 2019, left the toddler with a skull fracture. During the fourth inning of the game, the toddler was struck by a ball, which left her with a permanent brain injury and seizures. The baseball stadium’s netting did not reach where the toddler and her family were sitting, which would have likely prevented the accident. The toddler’s parents filed a petition that claimed that “acts and omissions constituting negligence” from the baseball team caused their daughter’s injuries.

NHTSA Opens Formal Investigation Following Tesla Autopilot Crash

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

Tesla has been leading the autonomous car industry, and while these cars are an alluring glimpse into the future, they also pose many dangers to road users. These dangers primarily stem from a driver’s overreliance on the vehicle’s technological ability to operate the car safely. A 2018 Florida Tesla autopilot accident is a prime example of the company’s claims and user overreliance.

In that case, a Florida driver was traveling in his Tesla in Autopilot mode when he bent down to look for his phone. Neither the driver nor the vehicle’s technology realized the road was ending. The vehicle flew through a stop sign and red light and slammed into a parked Chevrolet. The tragic accident took the life of a 22-year-college student. The woman’s estate filed a lawsuit against the company, arguing that the vehicles are “defective and unsafe.” In addition, the estate settled a lawsuit against the Tesla driver. This incident was just one of several fatal accidents involving Tesla vehicles operating on Autopilot mode.

The company explains that Autopilot mode is a system that allows the vehicle to accelerate, brake, and steer without a driver. While the company publicly touts their advanced technology or “driverless cars,” their website states that Autopilot mode is designed to “assist” the driver with “burdensome parts” of driving. Further, the website now states that “current” Autopilot features require “active” driver supervision. Despite its name, the vehicles are not autonomous, and the vehicle’s manuals warn operators not to use the function on city streets.

Florida Man Sentenced 60 Years Following Fatal DUI Accident

Published on: August 18, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Sometimes, no matter how careful we are on the road, what other drivers do is out of our control. When reckless or intoxicated drivers, bad weather conditions, or other external factors occur, accidents are sometimes inevitable. When the factors are preventable or at least avoidable, however, those who are responsible should be held accountable—especially if the accident that takes place results in significant injury, death, or property damage.

According to a recent Florida news report, a local man was recently sentenced to 60 years in prison following a fatal drunk driving accident that left a couple and their unborn child dead. A jury convicted the man of DUI manslaughter, leaving the scene of a car accident involving a death, and driving with a permanently revoked driver’s license. In 2018 when the initial accident took place, investigators said that the man was heavily intoxicated and driving the wrong way when he hit the couple’s car. He subsequently fled the scene and hid for hours in a ditch until local authorities located him. The man’s records indicated that he had a history of reckless driving, with five previous DUI arrests and his license revoked.

In Florida, like other states, loved ones of a deceased individual may have grounds to bring a wrongful death lawsuit if the deceased passed away because of another individual’s actions. Florida law defines wrongful death as taking place when an individual causes another’s death through a “wrongful act, negligence, default, or breach of contract or warranty.” Negligence-based accidents, such as reckless drunk driving accidents, for example, could serve as grounds for bringing a wrongful death suit.

Florida Workers’ Compensation Claims

Published on: August 18, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Work accidents can lead to serious physical injuries and psychological trauma. In some cases, the accident can be so severe that the employee suffers long-term injuries that can significantly impact their ability to engage in their activities of daily living and employment. In these situations, employees and their loved ones should contact an attorney to discuss their rights and remedies.

Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Insurance (WCI) is coverage that an employer or business purchases that provide employees with benefits if they suffer injuries at the workplace. The law requires most employers to participate in this program. There are certain exceptions to the requirement, such as non-construction-related companies that have four or fewer employees. WCI works to compensate the injury victim for their medical bills and lost wages. While the benefits include payments for hospitalizations, medication, and subsequent therapy, there are limitations to how much one can recover for lost wages, and Florida Workers’ compensation law can be challenging and complex. Further, the benefits do not cover pain and suffering. Issues often arise when the WCI fails to cover the extent of the injury victim’s losses.

In most cases, Florida’s workers’ compensation program prohibits employees from filing a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit against their employers. However, there are certain exceptions to the rule that apply. The exceptions include situations where:

Florida Appeals Court Finds Worker Entitled to Mental Health Workers’ Comp Benefits After Physical Injury Healed

Published on: August 10, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Workers’ compensation claims are meant to provide financial compensation to Florida workers injured on the job without having to go to court. In general, workers are able to receive benefits more quickly and are able to receive benefits without having to prove that the employer was at fault for the accident. But it also limits the amount of compensation some workers may receive, as it is often the only way workers can receive compensation after a work injury—though there are some exceptions. Employers also may deny workers benefits that they are due. In a recent case before a Florida appeals court, the court reversed a Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) decision, denying her mental health benefits after a work injury.

The claimant was working in a correctional facility when an inmate placed her in a chokehold, causing her neck and throat injuries. Two weeks later, she was determined to have reached the maximum medical improvement (MMI) for her physical injury and was determined not to have a permanent physical injury. She was also referred for psychiatric and psychological treatment. She was diagnosed with acute stress and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and continued receiving psychological and psychiatric treatment. However, six months after she reached physical MMI, the employer stopped paying indemnity benefits, causing her to file a claim for temporary benefits from that point on for her mental injury. The JCC found that temporary indemnity benefits for mental injuries are only available for six months after a claimant reaches physical MMI, and precluded her benefits beyond that point. The JCC held that section 440.093(3) precluded her from receiving the benefits because more than six months had passed since she had reached the maximum medical improvement (MMI) for her physical injury.

The Florida appeals court reversed the JCC’s decision. The court explained that the six-month limit for temporary benefits does apply in cases where the claimant reaches physical MMI and the six-month limit on temporary benefits commences from the time a claimant reaches physical MMI. However, the court held that according to Florida law, the six-month limit did not apply to the claimant because she had not received any permanent impairment benefits. The court explained that the statute only applies to claimants who are receiving impairment benefits. Therefore, the claimant was entitled to the benefits. Thus, the appeals court found the JCC committed an error and reversed the decision denying her benefits for her mental injury.

Florida Personal Injury Lawsuits Following Tour Bus and Trolley Accidents

Published on: August 10, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Tour companies frequently utilize buses, trolleys, and bikes to attract customers to their guided tours. While tour buses and trolleys are a great way to see interesting sights and attractions throughout South Florida, they are often more susceptible to accidents and serious injuries. Florida tour buses often make frequent stops to show passengers specific sites. These stops can cause other drivers to make sudden stops or try to pass the tour bus. Moreover, many tour buses and trolleys do not have safety belts or require their passengers to use them. This can lead to more severe injuries and even death. Those who suffer injuries after riding on a Florida tour bus or trolley should contact an attorney to discuss their rights and remedies.

In some cases, tour bus accidents are unavoidable; however, they usually involve some element of negligence. After an accident, the company, the driver, or another entity may be liable to the injury victims. The law does not impose liability on a tour bus company for the mere fact that a passenger suffered injuries. Instead, recovering compensation requires the victim to prove that the company failed to take sufficient steps to protect their customers.

Courts will look to whether the tour bus company took reasonable measures to ensure the safety of their passengers. This includes evaluating whether the company inspected the vehicle, made repairs, trained their drivers, and followed traffic rules. Companies that shirk their responsibility may be held liable for any accidents and ensuing injuries.

Florida Court Nearly Throws Out Slip-and-Fall Case

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

When most people visit a hotel, their main goal is to relax and unwind. They do not expect to be injured simply by walking about in their room. But unfortunately, hotels are one of the most common locations of Florida slip-and-fall accidents.

Of course, when hotels are sued, they come to court armed with a large corporate legal team. This reality can turn slip-and-fall cases into an uphill climb for injured guests. Working with a law firm with a proven track record in slip-and-fall cases can help increase the odds of winning your case.

A recent court decision demonstrated just how difficult it can be to win these cases in Florida.

Personal Watercraft Accidents in Florida

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

Personal Watercrafts (PWC) such as Jet Skis, WaveRunners, and Sea-Doos, are popular on Florida’s vast coastline. However, according to the United States Coast Guard (USCG), Florida PWC riders and passengers have a higher collision rate than almost any other type of watercraft. PWC accidents occur for various reasons, including operator inexperience, excessive risk-taking, and noncompliance with water safety rules.

Inexperienced operators and passengers are one of the leading causes of PWC accidents in Florida. According to the USCG, the majority of accidents involve operators between the ages of 11 to 20. Only approximately 18% of the accident claims involved owners, meaning that most injury victims do not involve an owner but instead friends or family members. Although some newer PWC models have special settings for new riders that limit the power output, many models do not have this safety function. Moreover, the USCG and National Transportation Safety Board report that over 80% of PWC accidents occur less than an hour into a ride. Nearly half of PWC injury victims reported never operating a device before the accident. As such, the majority of PWC accidents involve young, inexperienced, non-owner operators.

In addition, to rider inexperience, accident claims reveal that over 70% of PWC collisions involve another vessel, usually other PWCs. Inexperienced riders are often unfamiliar with how to control their speed and judge appropriate stopping distances. Even those who are familiar with boats and motorcycles have trouble handling PWCs. For instance, PWC’s do not have traditional brakes and can take over 300 feet to stop when the device is going around 60 mph.

Florida Court Refuses to Dismiss Accident Victim’s Personal Injury Case

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

A lot of legal jargon sounds as foreign as it is. In the case of “forum non-conveniens,” however, the meaning is much like it sounds. A tactical strategy to avoid litigation, the concept of forum non-conveniens allows defendants to argue that the case against them should be dismissed because the court—or “forum”—where the suit was brought is inconvenient for them.

In the past, big companies defending suits against accident victims have gotten cases dismissed on the ground of forum non-conveniens. The results can be alarming and unfair. Lacking the same resources as the typical corporation, the average accident victim—perhaps still recovering from her injuries—is often unable to bring the case in the court the company says is convenient for them. For example, for obvious reasons, a Florida resident taking on a chain retailer probably would not want to bring her case in Alaska.

In a decision earlier this month, a Florida appellate court denied a large health care company’s attempt to squash a lawsuit through forum non-conveniens. A man had sued the company several years earlier, claiming that the company’s allegedly defective medical device had injured him.

Vicarious Liability in Florida Injury Cases

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

Vicarious liability, or liability imputed to another party based on its relationship to the wrongful actor, can provide another avenue for a Florida injury victim to seek compensation. A recent decision from a federal appeals court illustrated an important difference between claims based on direct liability versus vicarious liability.

In the decision, issued by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in an appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the court described the facts giving rise to the case, which took place on a cruise ship. During a ten-day cruise, a passenger fell during a dance competition on the cruise ship. The passenger claimed that her partner in the dance competition, who was a cruise ship employee, released her hands as she leaned away while doing a dance move. She claimed that as a result, she fell backward and hit her head on the deck. She was later diagnosed with traumatic brain injury because of the fall. The passenger sued the ship’s owner for negligence, alleging in part that the employee failed to act in a way that would keep the passenger safe. A federal district court originally found that the shipowner was not liable to the passenger because it did not show that the owner had notice of the employee’s allegedly negligent dancing before her injury.

However, the appeals court held that under maritime negligence law, in a claim of negligence based on vicarious liability (as opposed to direct liability), the shipowner is liable for an employee’s negligence even if the owner is not directly liable for anything that it did or did not do. The court explained that when a shipowner is alleged to be directly liable for a passenger’s injuries, such as negligently failing to properly maintain its premises, the shipowner had to have notice of the risk-creating condition. In contrast, in a negligence claim based on vicarious liability, the plaintiff does not need to prove the shipowner had notice.