South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Florida Dog Bite Cases

Published on: April 2, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

While dogs are known as man’s best friend, they can occasionally turn on humans and cause serious injuries. When a dog causes injuries to another person, the injured party may be able to seek financial compensation for their injuries through a Florida dog bite case.Under Florida law, the owners of dogs are strictly liable for any injuries caused by their animals. This means that anyone who has suffered a dog bite injury will not need to establish that the owner was negligent in any way; it is enough to prove ownership of the dog. That being said, this only applies if the victim of the attack is lawfully on the property of the dog’s owner. Additionally, if the victim of the dog’s attack is deemed to have been negligent in bringing about their own injuries – perhaps by taunting the dog – the victim’s ultimate award amount will be reduced by their own percentage of fault.

A recent dog bite case illustrates how strict liability plays out in practice.

First Lawsuit Filed Following Florida International University Bridge Collapse

Published on: March 28, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a pedestrian bridge at Florida International University collapsed, killing six and injuring nine others. While the cause of the collapse is still under official investigation, there were reports that one of the lead engineers noticed cracks in the bridge before it was even complete and reported the cracks to administration. However, nothing was done.According to one news report, one of the several people who were injured in the bridge collapse has recently filed a Florida personal injury lawsuit against several of the parties involved in the construction of the bridge, including the firm that designed it and the construction company charged with installing the bridge. Evidently, the recently filed case was brought by a man who was riding his bike near the bridge when it collapsed.

The lawsuit claims that as the bridge collapsed, a motorist swerved to avoid either the falling bridge or another motorist and struck the man while he was on his bicycle. As a result of the collision, the man sustained serious injuries.

Court Finds in Favor of Parking Lot Owner in Recent Car Accident Case

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

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case involving the aggressive acts of a third party, discussing how such acts can play into a landowner’s liability to its visitors. The case is important for Florida car accident victims to understand because it discusses the concept of foreseeability, which comes into play in many personal injury cases.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant owned a parking lot that he had designed and leased to a food truck. The food truck was open each day, and it was most crowded on the weekends. On a weekend evening, the plaintiff hoped to visit the food truck. As the plaintiff pulled into the lot, however, he realized that it was very crowded and that he would have a difficult time finding a place to park, so he decided to back out and find another place to park.

As the plaintiff was backing out of the lot, he bumped into another vehicle that was pulling into the lot. The driver of that car got very angry, despite the plaintiff’s apology and offer to exchange insurance and vehicle information. The other driver then got into his own car, put it in reverse, and quickly backed out of the lot. However, in so doing, the other driver ran over the plaintiff, who was standing behind the car. The plaintiff was seriously injured as a result and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the owner of the parking lot.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims in Florida

Published on: March 21, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Psychological trauma can be devastating, whether it stems from being involved in a Florida car accident or witnessing a loved one suffer serious injuries themselves. Unfortunately, the legal field has been slow to come around to the idea that psychological trauma can have a lasting impact on those who suffer from it. However, with research in this area of medicine continuing to evolve, courts are beginning to accept the concept that witnessing a traumatic event can cause serious harm to an individual.Thus, in 1995, the Florida Supreme Court clearly outlined the elements of a relatively new cause of action called negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). An NIED claim is based on the physical injuries sustained by witnessing a very traumatic event. In the 1995 case referenced above, the court set forth the following requirements for an NIED claim:

The plaintiff must suffer some physical injury;
Which was a result of a psychological trauma;

Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Premises Liability Case, Finding Parents’ Presence Limited Defendant’s Duty to Children

Published on: March 19, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing the theory of premises liability as it pertained to a case involving a child who was seriously injured when a metal stanchion fell atop his finger. The case presents an interesting issue for Florida premises liability plaintiffs because it brings to light how the state’s attractive nuisance doctrine may be helpful to Florida plaintiffs in a similar situation.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a young boy who was playing on a series of metal stanchions that were used to create a line at a coffee shop. The stanchions were large metal poles, weighted at the bottom and connected by chains.

After the plaintiff and his family had ordered their drinks and used the restroom, they began to exit the store. However, as the plaintiff’s mother was walking out ahead of her son, she heard the young boy start to scream. She turned around to see that one of the metal stanchions had fallen on her son’s hand. Witnesses to the accident explained that the boy and his brother were playing on the stanchions and swinging from the chains.

Florida Wrongful Death Lawsuits Are Derivative of the Underlying Tort

Published on: March 14, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When someone is killed due to the negligence of another party, the survivors of the deceased may be entitled to financial compensation for their loss through a Florida wrongful death lawsuit. In order to succeed in a wrongful death lawsuit, a plaintiff must establish that their loved one’s death was a result of a negligent act or omission of the defendant.One issue that frequently comes up in wrongful death lawsuits, especially those arising in the context of nursing home abuse or neglect, is whether an arbitration agreement between the deceased and the defendant can be enforced against a survivor of the deceased when they file a wrongful death lawsuit. The short answer, in Florida, is “yes.”

A recent case in another state clearly illustrates the issue of derivativeness and its importance.

Court Affirms Jury’s Defense Verdict, Despite Defendant Admitting to Causing Accident

Published on: March 12, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case that presents an important issue that Florida car accident victims should consider when preparing their case. The case involved a car accident, which the defendant admitted to causing. However, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense, based on the plaintiff’s inability to establish that her damages were a result of the accident.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident when the defendant made a left turn in front of the plaintiff’s car, resulting in a collision. Approximately two years after the accident, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, seeking compensation for the injuries she sustained in the accident.

Prior to the accident, the plaintiff had been suffering from back and neck problems. At trial, the defendant admitted that the accident was her fault and even agreed that the accident resulted in “some injury” to the plaintiff; however, the defendant took issue with the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s claimed damages.

Additur and Remittur: A Judge’s Ability to Adjust a Jury’s Verdict in Florida

Published on: March 5, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When a jury renders a verdict in a Florida car accident case, the jury’s decision regarding the defendant’s liability to the plaintiff is generally insulated from review, absent extraordinary circumstances. However, once the jury returns a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the award amount that the jury reaches can be subject to a judge’s review under certain circumstances.Under Florida Statute section 768.74, a party can request a judge to review the jury’s award amount and ask that it be increased or decreased. If the judge agrees with the requesting party, the judge will order an additur (an increase) or a remittur (a decrease) in the award amount. Then, the party that requested the additur or remittur has the choice of accepting the revised award amount, or, if they believe the result to still be unsatisfactory, a new trial on the issue of damages will be ordered.

When a party asks a judge to order an additur or remittur, the judge will consider certain factors, which are outlined in section 768.74. Essentially, the judge will determine if the award was a product of “prejudice, passion, or corruption,” whether the jury considered evidence it should not have, and whether the award amount was supported by the evidence. A recent case illustrates a situation in which the judge agreed with a plaintiff that a jury’s award amount was insufficient.

Plaintiff’s Verdict Affirmed in Florida Case Involving Botched Spa Treatment

Published on: March 1, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a Florida personal injury case involving a claim brought by a plaintiff who suffered worsening symptoms of a pre-existing condition after being treated by the defendant aesthetician. The case required the court to determine if the defendant’s expert witness was properly prohibited from testifying, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Finding that the lower court did not err, the court affirmed the verdict.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, who suffered from mild rosacea, arranged to have a chemical peel at the defendant spa. The plaintiff noted on her intake form that she had rosacea, but the defendant aesthetician failed to read the form prior to beginning the procedure. The defendant admitted that, had she read the form, she would not have performed the procedure or would have conducted a test on a small area of skin first.

After the chemical peel, the plaintiff’s skin began to scar, and her rosacea was significantly worsened. The plaintiff saw several doctors and took medication as prescribed to improve her condition, but in the end, the doctors recommended laser treatment.

Court Hears Case Involving Insurance Company’s Denial of Coverage Based on Victim’s Conflicting Testimony

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

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case that presents a valuable lesson to Florida car accident victims. The case involves an accident victim’s conflicting testimony and how courts resolve such conflicts. Ultimately, the court determined that it would be improper to credit either of the plaintiff’s statements, and it sent the case to a jury for resolution.

The Facts of the Case

In 2015, the plaintiff was injured when her vehicle was struck by another driver. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against that driver but later found out that he did not carry auto insurance. Thus, the plaintiff added the name of her father’s insurance company to the case, claiming that she was covered under the policy’s uninsured motorist protection.

After the plaintiff filed the claim, the insurance company sent the plaintiff a list of questions. When answering the questions, the plaintiff stated that she lived with her three children. She also stated that her father lived across the street.