South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Court Dismisses Snowboarder’s Case Against Resort Based on Assumption of the Risk: How Florida Courts May Differ

Published on: December 20, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case illustrating an important difference between Florida personal injury law and the laws of many other states. The case involved the defendant’s allegation that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury and thus, should be precluded from obtaining compensation for her injuries.

Assumption of the Risk

In some states, if it is determined that a plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risks that resulted in her injuries the plaintiff is not allowed to recover for her injuries. The theory is that a person who is aware of the risks involved in an activity is able to weigh the risks before engaging in a particular activity. In general, Florida courts will not preclude a plaintiff from recovering for her injuries even if she was determined to have assumed the risk of injury. Instead, the court will allow the jury to factor the assumption-of-the-risk analysis into its comparative negligence finding.

There are, however, two exceptions to this rule, one of which is the participation in contact sports. If a plaintiff is injured while engaging in a contact sport, they may be found to have assumed the risks involved. The other exception involves a situation where a person signs a contract agreeing not to sue.

Court Dismisses Appeal Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Object at Trial, Illustrating Importance of Properly Preserving Issues in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: December 18, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case illustrating the importance of taking all steps to properly preserve any issues a party believes a judge decided wrongly in a Florida personal injury case. In this case, the court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal because she failed to make a timely objection.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was rear-ended by the defendant and subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant. Before trial, the plaintiff filed several proposed jury instructions, including an instruction on the doctrine of negligence per se. The case proceeded to trial, and before sending the jury back to deliberate, the judge held a charging conference where the judge discussed how he would instruct the jury and hear arguments from counsel about proposed charges.

Evidently, the charging conference was not memorialized. At the conclusion of the conference, the judge determined the instructions would not include the plaintiff’s proposed instruction on negligence per se. The judge asked the parties if they had anything to add, to which the plaintiff’s attorney responded: “I have no issues with the charge, Your Honor.” The jury was instructed accordingly, and then returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

Maintenance Company May Be Liable for Restaurant Employee’s Injuries Following Slip-and-Fall Accident

Published on: December 13, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case presenting an interesting issue that frequently arises in Florida premises liability lawsuits. The case required the court to determine if the defendant maintenance company had a contractually imposed duty to the plaintiff to warn the plaintiff’s employer of any dangerous defects the company discovered while cleaning the parking lot.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was an employee of a restaurant. One day, the plaintiff was asked to empty a grease trap into a dumpster located in the parking lot behind the restaurant. As the plaintiff approached the dumpster, he stepped in an uncovered water meter and spilled grease on himself. As a result, he suffered third-degree burns over his face and body.

The plaintiff initially filed a personal injury lawsuit against several parties; however, this appeal involves the maintenance company that the plaintiff’s employer had hired to maintain the restaurant’s parking lot. According to a contract between the plaintiff’s employer and the defendant maintenance company, the maintenance company was in charge of “sweeping” the parking lot. Also, the contract evidently contained a clause delegating the duty to warn the plaintiff’s employer of “any problems or defects that may be observed during each service visit” and that the company’s services were intended to “safeguard all persons and
property from injury.”

Court Determines Distracted Slip-and-Fall Accident Victim Was Not Entitled to Compensation

Published on: December 10, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida landowners owe a duty of care to those whom they invite onto their property. Generally speaking, a plaintiff must show that the defendant knew or should have known about the hazard that caused the plaintiff’s fall and that the defendant failed to act to remedy the hazard or warn the plaintiff about the hazard. A plaintiff’s negligence in failing to notice an obvious hazard may be a defense to a Florida premises liability lawsuit.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a premises liability case brought by a plaintiff who claimed that he did not notice the hazard that caused his fall because he was distracted by an employee of the defendant hardware store. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff was responsible for his distracted state because he initiated contact with the sales associate.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff visited the defendant hardware store one morning to pick up a part for his sprinkler system. The plaintiff entered the store through the garden section. The floor of the garden section as wet, as employees had just watered the plants.

Medical Malpractice Case Dismissed Due to Plaintiff’s Failure to Present Sworn Expert Testimony

Published on: December 6, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Before a court hears any Florida medical malpractice case, specific procedural requirements must be met. If a court determines that a plaintiff failed to follow each of the necessary steps, the court will very likely dismiss a plaintiff’s claim. While some plaintiffs may be able to re-file their complaint after a dismissal, many plaintiffs will find that their claims are barred by the statute of limitations, leaving them without any means of recovery. Thus, in a Florida medical malpractice case, it is critically important to ensure that all procedural requirements are strictly followed.

A recent case illustrates the consequences of failing to comply with the pre-suit requirement to provide expert testimony in support of a claim.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff had a knee surgery performed at the defendant medical center. After the surgery, the plaintiff experienced shortness of breath. A doctor placed the plaintiff on oxygen, ordered an x-ray, and then sent her home two days later. Two days after her discharge, the plaintiff’s shortness of breath worsened, and she was admitted to a different medical center where she was diagnosed with pneumonia. It was also determined that the plaintiff likely had a stroke after her discharge from the defendant medical center.

Construction Zone Accident Results in $3 Million Verdict for Injury Victim

Published on: December 3, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Not long ago, a man who was injured after he was involved in an accident with a construction vehicle was awarded $3 million after a jury trial. In a recent opinion, an appellate court affirmed the jury’s verdict.

The case presents several interesting issues for Florida truck accident victims, or those who have been injured in other Florida motor vehicle accidents. Most importantly, the case discusses how courts deal with arguments that the plaintiff shared blame in causing the accident that resulted in their injuries.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was driving in a construction zone when he came upon a stopped or slow-moving construction vehicle. The plaintiff decided to pass the vehicle by crossing the double-yellow line. However, as the plaintiff attempted to pass the construction vehicle, it made a sharp left turn, colliding with the plaintiff’s car.

Court Declines to Impose Duty on Landowner to Trim Trees Near Intersection

Published on: November 29, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent personal injury opinion, a state appellate court rejected a plaintiff’s claim against the defendant landowner that was based on the landowner’s failure to trim trees that the plaintiff claimed blocked the view of oncoming traffic. The case presents an interesting issue for Florida car accident plaintiffs because it illustrates the concept of landowner liability in a Florida personal injury case. Additionally, given the court’s unique concerns that may not apply in Florida, it is possible that the case may have been decided differently by a Florida court.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the case arose from a fatal accident that occurred at a rural intersection of two gravel roads. There were no road signs at the intersection. The plaintiff approached the intersection at the same time as another motorist, and the two vehicles collided.

Evidently, a post-accident investigation by law enforcement determined that neither of the drivers had applied the brakes or attempted to avoid the collision. Also, one law enforcement officer explained that it would have been impossible for the motorists to see the other approaching because the trees on the southeast corner of the intersection obscured the motorists’ vision.

Plaintiff’s Failure to Follow Instructions Included with Air-Powered Tool Results in Dismissal of Product Liability Case

Published on: November 26, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case discussing whether a plaintiff’s case against a defendant manufacturer is subject to dismissal at the summary judgment stage if the defendant manufacturer can establish that the plaintiff misused the product at issue. Ultimately, the court concluded that a plaintiff’s misuse of a product can be a complete defense to a product liability lawsuit if the defendant proves the plaintiff’s misuse.

The case is important to Florida product liability plaintiffs because it illustrates the misuse defense, which may act as a complete bar to recover in Florida product liability lawsuits proceeding under a strict liability theory. However, Florida courts have held that a plaintiff’s misuse of a product is not a complete defense in a negligence-based product liability claim, and that the plaintiff’s misuse cannot be used to bar recovery in these cases. Instead, a plaintiff’s misuse of a product can be used to reduce a plaintiff’s damages award.

The Facts

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was seriously injured while using an air-powered tool that was made by the defendant manufacturer. The tool contained an instruction manual, warning users should always wear safety goggles, should only use the tool with its cut-off wheel attachment when a safety guard is installed on the tool, and that only attachments rated for speeds up over 25,000 revolutions per minute (RPM) should be used. When the plaintiff purchased the tool, it did not come with a safety guard and the instruction manual did not mention where a user could obtain a safety guard.

Court Finds Landlord Is Not Liable in Recent Dog Bite Case

Published on: November 20, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Under Florida law, a dog owner can be held strictly liable for any injuries caused by their animal. This means that in a Florida dog bite case, the plaintiff will not need to establish that the animal’s owner was negligent in any way or that the owner knew of the dog’s propensity to attack in order to recover for their injuries.

A recent case discusses a slightly different situation in which a plaintiff who was bitten by a dog filed a personal injury lawsuit against the landlord who rented a home to the owner of the dogs. In this case, the court determined that to hold the landlord liable, the plaintiff needed to establish that the landlord knew that the dogs were dangerous.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the landlord owned a home that she had rented to a family for several years. During this time, the landlord had the opportunity to get to know the tenants’ three pit bulls. The landlord explained that she did not know the dogs to be aggressive and had never seen them attack any person or animal.

Court Determines Plaintiff Was Not Responsible for the Destruction of Relevant Evidence

Published on: November 15, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Last month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case rejecting the defendant’s claim that the plaintiff’s case should be dismissed based on the plaintiff’s failure to preserve relevant evidence. The case is important for Florida personal injury plaintiffs because it illustrates both the importance of preserving evidence that is in the plaintiff’s control, as well as taking expedient action to ensure potential defendants also preserve necessary evidence.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff’s wife was killed in a car accident. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff’s wife was driving on a highway when her car hydroplaned after encountering a puddle of water. Evidently, the storm drain that should have drained the water from the road was clogged with debris. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city responsible for maintaining the road.

After the accident, the plaintiff’s car was taken to a scrap yard. The owner of the scrap yard sent a letter to the plaintiff’s mother’s home, demanding payment of a daily storage fee. The plaintiff later retained counsel, who contacted the scrap yard and asked the vehicle be preserved. The plaintiff’s counsel also requested that all future communication be directed to him, rather than to the plaintiff.