South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Errant Golf Ball Strikes Baby in Stroller on Nearby City-Owned Walking Path

Published on: June 5, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion in a premises liability case that was brought by the mother of a child who was struck by an errant golf ball as she was wheeling her son in a stroller on a walking path owned and maintained by the city. The appellate court hearing the case determined that the city was not entitled to government trail immunity because the dangerous hazard that caused the injury was not a condition of the trail itself.

The Facts of the Case

The walking path where the injury occurred directly abuts a private golf course. A few years before the accident, the golf course installed a fence and strategically planted large trees to decrease the likelihood that golf balls would leave the course. However, there was no evidence that the city took any precaution regarding golf balls that were hit out of the boundaries of the golf course.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the city as well as the golf course. The plaintiff claimed that the city failed to take any action to remedy the known dangerous condition created by the potential of errant golf balls.

Appellate Court Allows Evidence of Out-of-Court Settlements in Medical Malpractice Case

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

Earlier this month, one state’s appellate court issued a written opinion in a medical malpractice case that required the court to determine whether the single doctor named as a defendant should be able to introduce evidence that there had originally been several other doctors named as defendants, but they had all settled with the plaintiff before the case reached trial. Ultimately, the court determined that the contested evidence was relevant to the case and should have been admitted.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the surviving loved ones of a man who died while he was being treated by the defendant doctor after he slipped and fell while playing racquetball. The defendant was one of several doctors who treated the plaintiffs’ loved one, and each of the other treating physicians had originally been named in the lawsuit. However, the plaintiffs agreed to settle the cases against the other physicians out of court and proceed to trial against only the defendant.

In a pre-trial motion, the plaintiffs asked the court to prevent the defendant from explaining to the jury that there were originally several other doctors named in the lawsuit, but they had reached settlements with the plaintiffs. Additionally, the plaintiffs asked the court to prevent the defendant from arguing that the subsequent acts of these other non-present doctors acted as an intervening cause of their loved one’s death. The trial court denied both of the plaintiffs’ motions, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury found in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed.

The Dangers of Boating on Florida Waters

Published on: May 25, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Boating, like any other method of transportation, has its inherent risks. While most boats are safely constructed, and most operators are knowledgeable about how to safely operate a marine vessel, accidents can happen, especially when a boat is being operated by an inexperienced or intoxicated driver.In Florida, there is no special license needed to operate a boat. In fact, anyone born before 1988 does not need any certification to operate a boat. Those born after January 1, 1988 must obtain a Boating Safety Education I.D. card issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. However, once obtained, this card is valid for life.

Air boat tours are popular across Florida. While air boat operators are normally experienced, in Florida, there is no requirement that these boats have any safety devices, such as seat belts, airbags, or even windshields. These boats do not have brakes and are often operated at a high rate of speed. In addition, due to the design of these boats, they are capable of suddenly stopping short if driven over dry land.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Nursing Home on Arbitration Issue

Published on: May 22, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Over the past few years, arbitration contracts in nursing homes have been a hot-bed of litigation across the country. Indeed, last year, a federal agency attempted to make it much more difficult for government-funded nursing homes to include arbitration agreements in their pre-admission contracts. However, since then, the nursing home industry has been successful in preventing the ultimate passage and enforcement of that rule.In the most recent development, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in a nursing home case siding with the nursing home. In that case, two family members filed wrongful death lawsuits against a nursing home that had cared for two of their loved ones prior to their death. Prior to the residents’ admission into the nursing home, they executed a general power of attorney in favor of the plaintiffs, giving the plaintiffs the ability to “dispose of all matters.”

The plaintiffs later placed their loved ones in the defendant nursing home. However, prior to their loved ones’ admission, the plaintiffs had to complete the pre-admission contract. One clause in that contract agreed to submit any and all claims that may arise between the parties to binding arbitration.

The Importance of Following All Procedural Requirements in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: May 17, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Last month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion highlighting the importance of complying with all of the procedural requirements in a South Florida personal injury lawsuit. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff did effectuate proper service on the government defendant and rejected the defendant’s appeal. However, the case should serve as a warning to would-be plaintiffs that even a single misstep may result in the dismissal of an otherwise meritorious case.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in an accident with a school bus. Believing the accident to be the fault of the school bus driver, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver of the bus as well as the school district that employed the driver. The plaintiff claimed that the school bus driver was negligent in operating the bus and that the school district was negligent in hiring the driver.

As is required under state law, the plaintiff set out to serve the defendants. The plaintiff hired a process-server, who went to the school district’s main building and inquired where he could deliver the service documents. The front-desk attendant directed the process-server to the HR department. Once at the HR department, the process-server met with the receptionist to the Deputy Superintendent. The receptionist called her superior, who instructed her to accept the service and said that she would come by later to pick it up. The process-server left the documents with the receptionist.

The Doctrine of Intervening Cause in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: May 15, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In all Florida personal injury cases, the plaintiff must prove certain facts before they will be entitled to receive compensation for their injuries. The specific elements that must be proven depend largely on the type of case, but some elements are almost universally required across all Florida personal injury cases.One of the most common – and most contested – elements in a Florida personal injury case is the element of causation. Simply stated, the element of causation requires that a plaintiff prove that the defendant’s actions were the cause of their injuries. While this sounds simple in theory, a recent case illustrates how establishing causation may not be as straightforward as it initially seems.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was riding his motorcycle on the highway. When he rounded a curve, he approached another accident without warning, and he was unable to safely stop in time to avoid an accident. He ended up sustaining serious injuries as a result of the motorcycle accident.

Court-Imposed Sanctions for Failing to Comply with Discovery Requests

Published on: May 10, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When a party files a personal injury lawsuit against a defendant, the case proceeds through several stages before ultimately going to trial. One of the most important and most contentious phases in a personal injury lawsuit is the pre-trial discovery phase.During the pre-trial discovery phase, parties make requests for certain evidence from the opposing party. A party can only request relevant evidence or evidence that may give rise to the discovery of additional relevant evidence. Once a party makes a request for certain evidence, the judge will rule on the request. If the judge orders that the requested material be released, the party in possession of the evidence must comply. A failure to comply can result in sanctions.

Sanctions for violating pre-trial discovery vary, depending on the type and severity of the violation. It is not unheard of for a court to dismiss a plaintiff’s case if he or she withholds evidence from the defense. If a defendant withholds evidence, the court can prevent the introduction of other evidence or issue a fine. However, any fine imposed can only be for the amount of money the plaintiff had to expend due to the defendant’s bad faith. A recent U.S. Supreme Court case illustrates this principle.

Personal Injury Plaintiff’s Case Against Government Entity Dismissed for Failing to Comply with Procedural Requirements

Published on: May 8, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Last month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving a car accident between the plaintiff and an employee with the Department of Transportation. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff’s complaint did not conform to the mandatory procedural requirements of a complaint filed against a government entity. As a result, the plaintiff’s case was dismissed by the court.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in an auto accident with an employee of the Georgia Department of Transportation. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries in the accident and filed a personal injury case against the Department under the theory of vicarious liability. Essentially, the doctrine of vicarious liability allows for a plaintiff to hold an employer responsible for the negligent acts of an employee.

Since the case named a government entity as a defendant, the plaintiff’s complaint needed to meet certain additional procedural requirements not present in cases against citizens or businesses. Generally, these additional requirements involve providing the government agency named as a defendant with appropriate notice of the lawsuit. This includes specifying the amount of damages the plaintiff is seeking.

Florida Appellate Court Determines Water Company May Be Liable in Slip-and-Fall Case

Published on: May 4, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a Florida appellate court issued a written opinion in a premises liability case against a water company after a woman tripped on a valve owned by the company. The court ultimately determined that the water company may be held liable not just for the maintenance of the valve itself but also for the area surrounding the valve.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was walking on a public street when she tripped on a water valve cover. According to the plaintiff, the valve cover had become separated from the surrounding asphalt and had risen slightly above ground level, creating a tripping hazard. The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against both the city as well as the water company.

Three months after the plaintiff’s injury, the water company fixed the asphalt around the valve cover. The case proceeded toward trial, and in a pre-trial motion, the water company was successful in excluding evidence of the asphalt repairs it had made from the jury’s consideration. After that, the water company argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to show that it was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries because it was not responsible for maintaining the area around the valve cover. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the water company.

Florida Courts Will Not Apply “Firefighter’s Rule” to Prevent Cases Filed by Injured Emergency Responders

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

As a general rule, people do not have a duty to assist in the rescue efforts of another party in danger. However, if a passerby does decide to assist in rescue efforts, the party who is in need of rescue has a duty of care to the person or people who have decided to help them. As a result, if a rescuer is injured in the course of helping the in-danger party, the party in need of rescue may be held liable for the rescuer’s injuries.In Florida, this rule broadly applies, meaning that even firefighters who are injured in the course of their employment may be able to seek financial compensation if they sustain injuries caused by a negligent homeowner. However, a recent case out of Kansas tests the limits of the rescue doctrine.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a police officer who was involved in a high-speed accident while responding to the scene of a single-vehicle accident. Prior to the accident, the plaintiff had received a call that there was an accident on the highway and that several south-bound lanes were blocked as a result. The plaintiff was given the specific location of the accident and told which lanes were blocked.