South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Liability After Florida Truck Accident Caused by Improperly Loaded Cargo

Published on: February 5, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Personal injury lawsuits, especially those involving trucks, often entail various complex issues and multiple parties. Those injured in a Florida trucking accident, should seek representation from an attorney to protect their rights and help pursue their remedies.

Trucking accidents tend to result in the most severe injuries and significant damages. Although some accidents are unavoidable, most Florida trucking accidents are due to one or more parties’ negligence or recklessness.

Truck manufacturers, trucking companies, loaders, and drivers, all maintain a duty to ensure that they act safely in the manufacture, training, securing, loading, and operation of their vehicles. A failure at any of these steps may result in serious dangers to anyone in the vicinity of the truck. People often attribute accidents to a defect in the truck itself or truck driver operation error; however, many Florida trucking accidents occur because of insecure cargo that becomes detached while the truck is in motion.

The Importance of Pleadings in Florida Personal Injury Lawsuits

Published on: February 3, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Although people are generally familiar with the stages of a criminal lawsuit, there tends to be an extraordinary amount of misinformation and confusion regarding Florida civil lawsuits. There are many critical stages of a civil lawsuit that can significantly impact a plaintiff’s avenue for recovery after an accident. Individuals should contact an attorney at the onset of their lawsuit to ensure that they maintain the ability to recover for their damages.

Pleadings are the first stage of a Florida personal injury lawsuit. Although the term is often conflated with “all documents” in a case, the term is much narrower in scope. Pleadings are only documents and filings that set forth allegations, causes of actions, and the defending entity’s responses and defenses. This stage includes the complaint, answers, responses, counter and cross-claims, and relevant amendments.

Florida personal injury lawsuits commence when a party files a complaint or petition. The victim or complaining party should include factual assertions and the associated legal claims. In some situations, the pleadings must conform to special rules, such as claims arising out of medical malpractice or governmental entities. Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow plaintiffs to proceed under inconsistent theories; however, the rule extends to defenses as well. Courts may rule in favor of a defendant and grant summary judgment if the complaint is insufficient. For example, a Florida appeals court recently dismissed at plaintiff’s claims based on a pleading deficit. In that case, the plaintiff asserted a negligence claim against his neighbor for a fire that a third-party contractor started. The plaintiff failed to address the third party in the complaint. The court found that both parties agreed that the defendant was not negligent and, therefore, only a vicarious liability claim would be viable against the defendant. However, the court dismissed the complaint because the plaintiff failed to allege vicarious liability in their pleading.

Filing a Third-Party Personal Injury Lawsuit After a Florida Workplace Accident

Published on: February 1, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law provides workers with benefits if they suffer injuries at work or while in the scope of their employment duties. At first glance, the system appears as a quick and efficient way for Florida employees to obtain benefits for their injuries and return to work. However, the system inherently favors employers because, barring certain exceptions, employees lose their right to bring a common-law personal injury lawsuit against their employer. Exceptions to this rule exist in certain situations, such as if the employer did not maintain appropriate worker’s compensation insurance. Further, an exception applies if the employee suffered injuries because of their employer’s particularly egregious wanton gross negligence or intentional conduct. Finally, workers’ compensation does not protect employers from assaults against their employees.

In many cases, workers’ compensation insurance does not adequately cover all of an employee’s injuries and damages. Although employees may not assert personal injury claims against their employer, they may recover damages from other responsible third-parties. To succeed on a third-party claim, plaintiffs must be able to prove that they had a work-related accident, the third-party owed them a duty of care, they breached that duty, and the plaintiff suffered injuries because of the work-related incident.

For example, a Florida news report recently described a tragic accident at a St. Petersburg Home Depot. A delivery driver suffered fatal injuries when construction materials fell on him at the store. The driver was working as a third-party carrier for a building material company. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the federal entity that ensures safe and healthy working conditions, reported that the incident is under investigation. Additionally, Home Depot commented that they were working with authorities to investigate the accident.

Navigating the “Obvious Danger” Doctrine in Florida Premises Liability Claims

Published on: January 27, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Whether you work in an office building or in a manufacturing plant, you go to work every day with a reasonable expectation that your workplace will be safe. In the event that something is unsafe or potentially dangerous, employers will typically mark or block off the space. For example, wet floor signs indicate when a corridor may be slippery, and construction tape can block off areas undergoing renovation. If you are injured while on the job because of a workplace hazard in Florida, you may be eligible to file a claim for compensation.

In a recent District Court of Appeal of Florida decision, the court considered the obvious danger doctrine in a premises liability claim. The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, was injured when he stepped into an uncovered drain on a construction site. At various times, the drain that injured the plaintiff was covered and uncovered, depending on the phase of construction. When the plaintiff was last at the site, the door he stepped through before being injured by the drain was marked off and closed with tape. On the day of the accident, however, the door was not blocked off by tape. Because of especially bright conditions and a mixture of sunlight and dust from the construction, the plaintiff was blinded temporarily when he opened the door to a landing and stepped into the drain. Following the accident, the plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence, arguing that the defendant breached its duty to maintain safe premises. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, concluding that they had no duty to warn the plaintiff of “an open and obvious drain” and that the plaintiff should have taken steps to avoid the accident.

On appeal, the court reversed and sided with the plaintiff. According to the appellate court, the lower court was incorrect when it held that the defendant was not liable because the drain was open and obvious. Although the drain may have been obviously uncovered, the defendant failed to dispute whether its dangerous condition was obvious. Further, the court reasoned that even if the drain’s danger was open and obvious, the defendant still had a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises for its employees.

Court Awards New Trial in Florida Premises Liability Appeal

Published on: January 22, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, an appellate court addressed whether a res ipsa loquitur jury instruction was appropriate in a Florida premises liability case. The case arose when an attorney was visiting her client in an Orange County jail. As she was passing through the security gate, the gate unexpectedly slammed down onto her, causing her to suffer injuries. The plaintiff pursued a lawsuit against the Orange County jail. At trial, she requested the court to provide a res ipsa loquitur instruction to the jury. After losing at trial, the County appealed, requesting a new trial, arguing that the instruction was inappropriate.

Res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary rule that shifts a plaintiff’s burden of proof to the defendant. The doctrine translates to “the thing speaks for itself”, and applies in cases where a court can infer negligence from the fundamental nature of an accident or injury. Plaintiffs who wish to prove a claim under the doctrine must meet three elements:

Direct proof of negligence is unavailable;

Court Addresses Summary Judgment Standard in Florida Car Accident Case

Published on: January 20, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Florida answered a certified question regarding the state’s current summary judgment standard. The lower court certified a question asking the court whether there should be an exception to the summary judgment standard when the moving party has video evidence that refutes any evidence that the non-moving party presents.

The case arose after a fatal Florida rear-end car accident. The decedent’s estate filed a lawsuit against the front-car driver and the driver’s employer. At trial, the court relied on the front-car driver’s video evidence showing that the driver was not negligent. However, the appellate court reversed, stating that the trial court “improperly weighed’ conflicting evidence, leading to the certified question.

In the last year, the Florida Supreme Court advised the public of its intention to adopt the summary judgment standard explained by the United States Supreme Court. The court explained that despite the similarities, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure had not been aligned. The first difference stems from Florida courts’ refusal to recognize the similarities between summary judgment standards and directed verdicts. Next, Florida courts place the burden on the moving party to disprove the other party’s case theory, to successfully eliminate any issue of fact. Federal courts discharge the moving party’s burden when there is an absence of evidence to support the other party’s case. Finally, Florida courts permit a broad understanding of what amounts to a “genuine issue of material fact”, where the “slightest doubt” is enough to preclude summary judgment. Florida courts have announced that the federal standard best serves the civil procedure rules, and the change will take place in May 2021.

Fatal Florida Car Accident Leads to Wrongful Death Case

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

A federal district court recently issued an opinion in a plaintiffs’ appeal in a case involving their daughter’s death. The case arose from a tragic Florida car accident that occurred on New Year’s Day.

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was driving his mother’s sports car with the plaintiffs’ teenage daughter and another passenger. The driver accelerated to above the speed limit, losing control, and slamming into trees and a lamppost. The driver and another passenger survived the collision, but the plaintiffs’ daughter died at the scene. The state pursued criminal charges against the driver, and the plaintiffs filed a wrongful death suit against the driver, his mother, and the other passenger. However, they could not obtain service on the passenger and dropped him from the lawsuit.

The driver claimed he did not obtain his mother’s consent to drive any of her vehicles, including her golf cart or Porsche sports car. Moreover, the mother testified that she was aware that her son did not have a driver’s license, and she did not permit him to drive her Porsche. The mother moved for summary judgment based on her affidavit and her son’s deposition. In response, the plaintiff presented evidence that the mother permitted her son to drive her golf cart. Further, the plaintiffs contended that the mother presented conflicting evidence regarding whether she ever expressly told her son not to drive her vehicles. The plaintiffs also asked the court to continue the summary judgment motion because they were facing challenges deposing the other passenger. The mother argued that the plaintiffs were causing the delay.

Florida Product Liability Lawsuits Related to Defective Toys

Published on: January 13, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A leading market research company report indicates that global toy sales are a steadily increasing multi-billion-dollar industry. Every year, manufacturers release nearly 5,000 new toys into the consumer stream. Many of these products are fast-tracked with growing competition, leading to shoddily constructed and potentially dangerous toys. If a child suffers injuries because of a defective toy, their family may recover under Florida’s product liability laws.

The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reports that over 200,000 children receive treatment at hospital emergency rooms because of injuries related to defective toys. In some cases, the child misuses the toy; however, many of these injuries are caused by the toy’s dangerous propensity. According to the most recent data published by the CPSC from 2018, there were 17 toy-related fatalities among children under 15-years-old. The majority of fatalities were related to non-motorized scooters. Other fatalities were related to motor vehicle involvement and drownings. The next set of toys involved were rubber balls, stuffed toys and doll accessories, and water toys. Other notable tragic deaths were related to balloon choking, plastic toy food, water guns, and toy dart guns. The report also shows there were almost 230,000 toy-related injuries for all ages treated in U.S. emergency rooms. Toy-related injuries can range in severity; however, many accidents lead to brain injuries, fractures, burns and puncture wounds. In some cases, these injuries can result in life-long disability and pain.

In light of this harrowing data and in conjunction with the influx of toys, many children received over the holidays, and during the lock down, parents should examine toys for potential hazards. If a child suffers an injury because of a defective product, Florida permits three main types of product liability lawsuits: manufacturing defect claims, design defect claims, and failure to warn claims.

Ceiling Fan Recall May Result in Florida Product Liability Lawsuit

Published on: January 7, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Home Depot recently issued a voluntary recall of an indoor/outdoor fan sold in their retail stores and online. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), reported that they received nearly 50 reports of blades detaching from the fan. Those that have suffered injuries from a defective fan may have a Florida product liability claim. The Home Depot voluntarily announced the recall, stating that they stopped selling the products when they discovered the issue. It is unclear whether the detaching blade hit or injured individuals, but there have been reports that the blades caused property damage. According to the CPSC, about 182,000 fans were sold in the United States, and close to 9,000 were sold in Canada.

In Florida, manufacturers have a legal duty to ensure that their products are safe for consumers and those that use their products. When a person suffers an injury, or dies because of a defective product, they file a claim based on the company’s strict liability or negligence. Florida product liability claims require that a plaintiff establishes that they suffered an actual injury or monetary loss because of the product. These claims are generally based on the product’s defective design, manufacturer, or the fact that the manufacturer knew or should have known the risks and failed to warn users.

After establishing the injury and theory, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the alleged defect proximately caused their injuries and losses. Defendants often argue that they should not be liable because the plaintiff failed to use the product appropriately. As such, plaintiffs must establish that they used the product in a way that the manufacturer intended or should have expected a reasonable person to use it.

Florida Oral Contraceptive Injury Lawsuits

Published on: January 5, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Oral contraceptives and other types of hormonal and non-hormonal birth control devices are necessary and life-changing for many women who want to take charge of their fertility, address premenstrual syndrome conditions, and control some forms of acne. However, despite rigorous testing, many hormonal birth controls have side effects that may result in serious injuries and illnesses to their users. After taking an oral contraceptive or the insertion of an intrauterine device, individuals who suffer injuries may file a Florida dangerous drug lawsuit to recover for their injuries.

Many of these pills and devices contain a synthetic form of progestin. Although most women adjust to the pills, or do not suffer serious side effects, others experience significant medical side effects. Some side effects include deep vein thrombosis, venous thromboembolism (blood clots), heart attack, stroke, organ damage, or even death. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires pharmaceutical companies to improve their warning labels, women continue to suffer complications from these medications. In some cases, the warning labels are inadequate and do not clearly include the list of side effects. In other situations, doctors fail to assess their patients appropriately before prescribing the medication.

For instance, a circuit court of appeals recently issued an opinion in an unsafe oral contraceptive lawsuit relevant to Florida product liability plaintiffs. In that case, a woman suffered a debilitating stroke after taking an oral contraceptive, known to increase the risk of blood clots. The woman and her husband filed a lawsuit against the drug manufacturer for failure to provide an adequate warning of stroke risk. In response, the company moved to dismiss the claim, alleging that the learned intermediary doctrine limits their liability.