South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Premises Liability Case Based on the Fact that Injury Occurred Off Defendant’s Property

Published on: December 1, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

As a general rule, Florida landowners have an obligation to ensure that their property is safe for those whom they invite onto their property. The extent of this obligation depends on the relationship between the parties and takes into account the reason why the plaintiff was on the defendant’s property. For the most part, landowners must take action to clear known hazards or warn of the hazards that may not have been visible by the visitor’s naked eye. If a landowner fails to take the adequate precautions, they may be liable for a visitor’s injuries through a Florida premises liability lawsuit.In some cases, a landowner can be held liable for injuries that occur off their property, although this is a much rarer scenario. That is because the general rule is that landowners are not responsible to ensure a visitor’s safety before the visitor enters the property or after they leave the property. However, if the plaintiff can show that the defendant’s conduct increased the dangers involved, or if it obscured the off-site hazards, a defendant may be found liable for injuries occurring off their property.

A recent case provides an in-depth discussion of landowner liability as it pertains to off-site injuries.

Court Reverses Jury’s Verdict Based on Lack of Evidence Showing the Defendant Knew about Hazard that Caused Plaintiff’s Fall

Published on: November 27, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a Florida premises liability lawsuit requiring the court to determine if the lower court was proper to deny the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence showing the defendant knew about the hazard that caused her fall.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a patron at a BBQ stand that was located on property owned by a sports club. After dining, the plaintiff slipped and fell on a public sidewalk near the stand. She sustained serious injuries in the fall and filed a premises liability case against both the sports club as well as the county that maintained the sidewalk.

The plaintiff claimed that the sports club was negligent in failing to clean a grease trap, resulting in grease spilling onto the sidewalk. The plaintiff claimed that the county was negligent in failing to clean up the grease on the public sidewalk. The case went to trial, and a jury determined that the sports club and the county were each 50% liable for the plaintiff’s injuries and that the plaintiff was 0% at fault.

Florida Court Explains Not All Injury Cases Arising in the Medical Context Should Be Considered “Medical Malpractice” Cases

Published on: November 24, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Medical malpractice cases generally present complex scientific or medical concepts that are beyond the understanding of must jurors. For this reason, nearly all Florida medical malpractice cases require the testimony of experts to explain some of the issues in the case to the jurors. Experts can also offer their opinions about whether the care provided by a defendant doctor fell below the generally accepted standard of care.Due to the complex nature of Florida medical malpractice cases, Florida law places certain requirements on plaintiffs filing this type of case. One of the most important differences between medical malpractice cases and other personal injury cases is that medical malpractice cases are subject to a shorter statute of limitations. In Florida, a medical malpractice plaintiff must file their claim within two years of the incident (or, if the injury is not discovered until a later date, within two years of the plaintiff’s discovery of the injury).

A recent case presented a Florida appellate court with the chance to decide whether a plaintiff’s slip-and-fall accident should be considered a medical malpractice case.

Florida Supreme Court Issues Landmark Medical Malpractice Opinion

Published on: November 20, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, the state’s Supreme Court issued a Florida medical malpractice opinion that will likely have a great impact moving forward. The case required the court to consider a patient’s right to privacy following an alleged medical malpractice event. Specifically, it addressed whether the patient loses their right to privacy in certain medical records once the patient dies. The court ultimately held that a patient’s right to privacy survives after death and may be asserted by a family member bringing a Florida wrongful death lawsuit.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the surviving spouse of a man who died while in the care of the defendant physician. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant doctor, and in response, the doctor requested certain medical records pursuant to the rules of discovery.

The particular rules of discovery invoked by the defendant required the plaintiff to disclose all of the health care providers that her husband saw in the years leading up to his death. Furthermore, the rules actually allowed for the defendant to have secret meetings with the medical care providers in the absence of the plaintiff or her attorney.

Florida Supreme Court Interprets “Amendment 7” To Provide Broad Right of Access to Medical Records

Published on: November 16, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Back in 2004, Florida citizens amended the Florida Constitution to include a “right to have access to any records made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or provider relating to any adverse medical incident.” This amendment became known as Amendment 7. In a recent Florida medical malpractice case, the state’s Supreme Court issued an opinion discussing the breadth of the amendment and whether common-law privileges held by medical providers can override the reach of Amendment 7.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure that was conducted by the defendant doctor. During the procedure, the plaintiff’s bile duct was severed. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, claiming that the doctor was negligent in performing the surgery. The plaintiff also named the medical center where the procedure was performed as a defendant.

During pre-trial discovery, the plaintiff requested certain documents from the defendant, including records of other adverse medical events that occurred at the defendant medical center. The defendants objected to the plaintiff’s request for discovery, claiming that several privileges attached to the documents and that therefore they were not subject to the rules of discovery.

Court Upholds Arbitration Agreement in Recent Nursing Home Negligence Lawsuit

Published on: November 13, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a nursing home case brought by the surviving loved ones of a woman who died while in the care of the defendant nursing home facility. The case presented a hot-button issue in many nursing home cases across the country: the enforceability of an arbitration clause that was contained in a pre-admission contract. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff was bound by the arbitration clause because the person who signed on the resident’s behalf had the authority to do so, and the clause itself was not contrary to public policy or otherwise unenforceable.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the daughter of a nursing home resident who died shortly after being admitted to the hospital while she was a resident at the defendant nursing home. The allegations were that the nursing home failed to implement a safety protocol to prevent residents from falling. The evidence presented suggested that the plaintiff’s loved one fell at least twice during her stay, resulting in injuries that worsened and eventually led to her premature death.

Prior to the resident’s admission into the nursing home, one of the resident’s daughters signed a pre-admission contract. That contract had an arbitration clause contained in it, which stated that the parties agreed to submit any claims between the two to binding arbitration, rather than handling them through the court system. At the time, the resident had executed a power of attorney document, granting her daughter power over her affairs “without limitation.”

Court Finds Hospital Lacked Knowledge of Black Ice in Parking Garage, Dismissing Plaintiff’s Premises Liability Case

Published on: November 9, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida landowners are responsible to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition for those whom they invite onto the premises. This includes not just individuals, but also businesses and government entities. However, not all slip-and-fall accidents will result in the landowner being liable for the injuries of the person who was injured. In order to succeed in a Florida premises liability case, the plaintiff must be able to establish, among other things, that the defendant landowner knew about the hazard that resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries.In a recent slip-and-fall case arising out of neighboring Georgia, the court had the opportunity to discuss premises liability law as it pertained to a case involving a man who fell on a patch of black ice after exiting his car in a hospital parking garage. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing that the defendant knew about the black ice. As a result, the plaintiff’s case was dismissed.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was dropping his wife off at the defendant hospital for a minor medical procedure. After the plaintiff dropped off his wife, he proceeded to the uncovered top level of the hospital’s parking garage.

Can a Judge Override a Jury’s Verdict in a Florida Personal Injury Case?

Published on: November 6, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In most Florida personal injury cases, the judge’s role is to determine which evidence is admissible at trial, rule on any objections that are made during the course of the trial, and ultimately instruct the jury on the relevant law after the parties have rested. Judges also are responsible for hearing any post-trial motions and ruling on these motions.In most cases, once a jury returns a verdict in a Florida personal injury case, that decision is final. However, there are a few exceptions to that general rule. First, either party may be able to appeal a legal decision made by the judge during the course of the trial. For example, if one party believes that the court unfairly kept evidence from the jury’s consideration, they may appeal that ruling to a higher court.

Another example of this is when the trial judge determines that the jury’s verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence. This is usually argued in a post-trial motion brought by the side that did not prevail at trial, arguing that the jury was wrong in its determination based on the evidence presented. In order to succeed in this type of claim, a party must show that the jury based its decision on evidence that did not exist or was not admitted. A recent case illustrates the courts’ general reluctance to override a jury’s verdict.

Failure to Raise an Issue at Trial May Prevent Appellate Review in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: November 2, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

As is often the case in many of life’s endeavors, preparation is crucial to the outcome of a Florida personal injury case. While this is true across the board – from the moment the case is filed to when the jury returns a verdict – preparation is especially important when it comes to understanding the other side’s case and anticipating which issues may arise. Such preparation gives a Florida personal injury plaintiff an advantage that cannot be overstated.A recent case illustrates how an insurance company’s lack of preparation resulted in the company waiving an issue that would otherwise likely have been resolved in its favor. As a result of the company’s failure to raise the issue, the plaintiff was successful in getting an adverse lower court ruling reversed in her favor.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured when she was involved in a car accident that was caused by another motorist. The at-fault motorist did not have adequate insurance coverage to fully compensate the plaintiff for her injuries. However, the plaintiff was covered by two other insurance policies, both of which contained underinsured motorist protection. The plaintiff’s mother had a policy with Allstate that provided $25,000 in underinsured motorist coverage. Additionally, the plaintiff’s father’s policy with Geico provided $20,000 in underinsured motorist protection.

Florida’s Recreational Use Statute

Published on: October 26, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When someone is injured on the property of another party due to some defect or hazard on the property, they may file a South Florida premises liability lawsuit against the landowner, seeking compensation for their injuries. In general, landowners owe a duty of care to most people who enter their land. The extent to which a landowner must go to provide a safe property depends heavily on the relationship between the parties and the reason why the visitor is on the landowner’s property.One question that often comes up in Florida premises liability lawsuits is whether an accident victim can recover compensation when they are hurt on another party’s land while engaging in a recreational activity, such as swimming, hiking, hunting, fishing, or boating. The answer, as with many questions in the law, is “it depends.”

Under Florida’s recreational use statute, Florida Statute 375.251, some landowners who allow others to use their property for recreational purposes are immune from liability. In order to qualify for this immunity, a landowner must show that they allowed the injured person to use their land for a recreational purpose and did not collect a fee for doing so. The burden is on the landowner to establish these elements, and a landowner’s failure to present evidence of each will result in the court declining to find that the landowner is immune from liability. A recent case illustrates how a court might analyze a recreational use defense.