South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

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.

Court Permits Premises Liability Case to Proceed After Applying the Res Ipsa Loquitor Doctrine

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

A state appellate court recently released an opinion in a case discussing the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor as it relates to personal injury matters. Res ipsa loquitor is a Latin phrase that roughly translates to “the thing speaks for itself.” The doctrine may apply in some Florida personal injury cases where the exact cause of a plaintiff’s injury is unknown, but the nature of the accident is such that it would not likely have occurred absent the defendant’s negligence.

The Res Ipsa Loquitor Doctrine

Res ipsa loquitor is an old common-law doctrine that allows for the judge or jury to infer a defendant’s negligence from the surrounding circumstances. For the doctrine to apply, Florida courts require the plaintiff to establish three elements. First, the plaintiff must show that the instrumentality that caused the plaintiff’s injuries was in the sole control of the defendant. Second, that the accident resulting in the plaintiff’s injuries would likely not have happened absent the defendant’s negligence. And finally, that no direct proof of negligence is available.

The Case’s Facts

This case involved a woman who was injured as she was exiting an elevator in the defendant condominium complex. According to the court’s opinion, the woman was exiting the elevator when the doors to the elevator suddenly closed on her. The plaintiff filed a personal injury case against the condo complex, asserting claims under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.

Court Finds Grocery Store Does Not Have a Duty to Provide “Staged” Shopping Carts to Customers

Published on: November 8, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an interesting opinion in a personal injury case discussing whether the defendant grocery store had a duty to provide staged shopping carts for the use of customers. Ultimately, the court concluded that the store did not have such a duty and did not voluntarily assume a duty by implementing standard operating procedures directing employees to stage carts when they had spare time.

The case presents an important issue that frequently arises in Florida slip-and-fall cases. Specifically, it involves the existence and extent of a duty that a business owes to its customers.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant grocery store maintains a corral of shopping carts near the store’s entrance. The store employs a greeter whose job it is to stand by the entrance and greet customers. While the greeter’s primary responsibility is to greet customers, the store’s standard operating procedures call for idle greeters to stage shopping carts by dislodging them from one another and loosely nesting them, making it easier for customers to obtain carts.

Court Holds That Police Department May Be Liable for Officer’s Failure to Use Due Care While Responding to an Emergency

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

In a recent personal injury case, a state appellate court issued a written opinion discussing whether a police department could be held liable under the state’s tort claims act for injuries caused while the officer was responding to an emergency call. The case presents an important issue for Florida car accident victims who have been injured due to the negligence of a police officer or other government employee.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was injured in a car accident when a police officer made a left-hand turn against a red light while responding to an emergency call. There was some evidence suggesting that the police car’s emergency lights were activated at the time the vehicle entered the intersection but that siren was not engaged. A subsequent investigation revealed that the plaintiff was not speeding at the time of the accident, and given the nature of the intersection the plaintiff would not have been able to see the officer’s vehicle approaching.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the city that employed the officer, claiming that the officer was negligent and that the city was vicariously responsible for the officer’s negligent actions. The city responded that the officer was exercising discretion in responding to the emergency call, and that the discretionary acts of a government employee are entitled to immunity.