South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Plaintiffs with Foreign Object in Body Always Entitled to Presumption of Negligence, Florida Supreme Court Holds

Published on: March 23, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Florida Supreme Court recently determined that a plaintiff who undergoes a procedure and has a foreign object left in their body is always entitled to a presumption of negligence. Before this decision, a federal appeals court had decided that a plaintiff was not entitled to the presumption where direct evidence of negligence exists. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision changed in this most recent opinion, making it easier for Florida plaintiffs to recover.

Facts of the Case

In 2011, a man was admitted to a hospital for a surgical procedure. During the procedure, the surgeon inserted a drainage tube into his abdomen. These tubes are normally removed after surgery. The tube was removed a few days later, but a section of the tube was accidentally left inside his abdomen.

After the man began experiencing pain in his abdomen, a CT scan showed that the section of the tube was still in his body. The man then had a second surgery to have the tube removed.

Florida Appellate Court Upholds Defense Verdict in Car Accident Case

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

Earlier this month, a Florida appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case brought by a motorist who was rear-ended by another driver. The court ultimately affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant despite the fact that the defendant driver admitted that he was at fault for causing the accident. The court based its opinion on the fact that the jury was presented with conflicting evidence as to the seriousness of the collision, and therefore the jury was free to find that the collision was not the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was driving to the gym when he was struck from behind by the defendant, who was driving a pick-up truck. The plaintiff did not immediately go to the hospital, but went the next day. After being seen by a doctor, the plaintiff was prescribed pain medication and completed three months of physical therapy. The plaintiff filed a personal injury case against the defendant, seeking compensation for his medical bills as well as for his lost wages.

Both the plaintiff and the defendant testified at trial, and offered different versions of what happened on the day of the accident. The plaintiff testified he was completely stopped when the defendant rear-ended him, and that he had to “brace” himself to prevent his head from striking the steering wheel. He explained that his car suffered various types of damage as a result of the collision.

Court Holds Bus Driver Can Be Held Strictly Liable After She Became Suddenly Unconscious on School Trip

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

In a recent case, one state’s supreme court considered whether a high school bus driver could be held strictly liable after she suddenly lost consciousness while behind the wheel. The driver was taking students back from a high school band competition when she experienced a sudden and unforeseeable loss of consciousness, causing the bus to roll over. Several passengers were injured and filed a lawsuit against the driver. After filing the lawsuit, the passengers argued that they were entitled to summary judgment in their favor and that the insurance company was liable for their injuries under strict liability.A state law required drivers to have motor vehicle liability insurance policies to “cover damages or injury resulting from a covered driver of a motor vehicle” who suddenly and unforeseeably becomes incapacitated. The passengers argued that the state law meant that they were not required to prove negligence when someone suddenly loses consciousness, and that the insurance company was strictly liable in those cases. The insurance company argued that the statute only meant that insurance had to be provided for those circumstances.

Florida Woman Files Claim Against Bank After Falling in Hole in Construction Area

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

A Florida appellate court recently considered whether a bank could be held liable after a woman fell in a hole in a construction zone on the bank’s property. The woman had driven to the bank to make a deposit. When she arrived, she saw the bank was closed and decided to use the bank’s outdoor ATM. She parked her car and saw that the area was under construction with a barricade in front of the ATM. The woman says there was a sign with an arrow directing people to walk around the barricade. She followed the directions, but as she was walking around the barricade, she stepped in a hole, causing her to fall and break her foot and her leg. She said did not see the hole, but admitted that there was nothing preventing her from looking down and seeing the it.The woman filed a claim against the bank and its general contractor, alleging a breach of duty to warn and a breach of duty to maintain a safe location. The defendants claimed they were entitled to summary judgment under the obvious danger doctrine. The woman argued they were not entitled to summary judgment because the condition was not open and obvious.

Court Characterizes Doctor’s Office Slip-and-Fall Accident as a Medical Malpractice Incident

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

Earlier this month, a West Virginia appellate court issued a written opinion in a slip-and-fall case illustrating one of the difficulties plaintiffs may encounter when their injury occurs at a hospital or doctor’s office. The issue in the case was whether the plaintiff’s slip-and-fall case should have been characterized as a premises liability case or a medical malpractice case. Ultimately, the court held that since the injury occurred while the plaintiff was seeking “health care related” services, the case was properly considered a medical malpractice case.The case involved an elderly woman who accompanied her husband to an urgent care facility. After the couple arrived and checked in, they were shown to the examination room by a medical assistant. The medical assistant instructed the patient to get onto the examination table and wait for the doctor to arrive. As the man attempted to climb onto the table, he fell, landing on his wife. Shortly after the incident, the man died from complications related to the injuries he sustained in the fall.

The man’s wife filed a personal injury case against the urgent care facility under a premises liability theory. However, the urgent care facility claimed that the case should have been brought under the state’s medical malpractice statute, arguing that it was “related” to the provision of health care services. The court agreed.

Study Shows Increase in Car Accident Deaths in 2016

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

In Florida, as in any other state, all drivers have a duty to drive in a careful and prudent manner so that they can avoid endangering others’ persons or property. If a driver breaches that duty and injures someone, the driver may be held liable for injuries and other damages. Whether a driver was operating the vehicle reasonably depends on the circumstances of each case. For example, traveling at the posted speed limit may be reasonable under good weather conditions, but it may be unreasonable in a snow storm.Florida law requires drivers to carry at least $10,000 in personal injury protection coverage. This covers medical costs up to the policy amount in the event of an accident, regardless of who was at fault. Drivers also must have a minimum of $10,000 in coverage for property damage. However, in the event of a serious accident, these minimum amounts often do not cover all of the damages an injured person incurs.

Motorist Deaths Increased by 6% in 2016

Data released by the National Safety Council showed that motor vehicle accident deaths in the U.S. rose 6% in 2016 as compared to 2015. According to one news source, the numbers increased 14% compared to data from 2014. The National Safety Council’s numbers are similar to those found by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which found an 8% rise in accident deaths in the first nine months of 2016. Motor vehicle accident deaths amounted to about 40,200 in 2016, which was the first time since 2007 that they were over 40,000.

Employer’s Failure to Conduct Thorough Background Investigation May Be Basis for Liability in Employee’s DUI Accident

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

In a recent case, a state appellate court considered whether a company could be held liable after an employee caused an accident in a company car while driving drunk. According to the facts as laid out in the court’s opinion, the employee received permission to use a company car on a weekend to move a mattress into a new home, even though this was a violation of company policy. The employee drank several alcoholic drinks on the day he borrowed the car and then collided with the plaintiff’s car.The plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the employee and also brought a claim against the company for negligent entrustment. A trial court first heard the case and granted summary judgment to the company on the negligent entrustment claim. It concluded the employer did not know the employee had a pattern of reckless driving, since the employer only knew the employee had one prior DUI conviction and was not aware he had additional DUI convictions.

The plaintiff appealed the decision. He argued summary judgment was improper because the court should have considered whether the company had a duty to investigate the employee’s driving background more thoroughly. The appeals court agreed. It noted that when the company hired the employee, he listed a 1990 conviction for possession of cocaine, but he omitted multiple prior DUI convictions. However, the employee said he told the company about his history of drugs and alcohol, and he also told the company his license was reinstated in 2010 after it was suspended for a DUI conviction. The company did a background investigation of the employee before hiring him. The investigation showed a clean driving history, but it only showed infractions for the previous three years, and his federal criminal history did not show any convictions.

Woman Fails to Show Fall at Fast Food Restaurant’s Entrance Was Caused by Restaurant’s Negligence

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

In a recently decided premises liability case, a woman fell as she was entering a fast food restaurant and later brought a lawsuit against the business. The woman alleged that she tried to open the doors to enter the restaurant but that the doors were difficult to open and that she fell while trying to enter the restaurant. She claimed she was pushing on the door when her feet “just slipped out from under [her].” She said that she did not recall seeing water on the floor before her fall and that there was a mat on the floor in the area of her fall. When asked, she could not explain what caused her to fall. The restaurant filed an affidavit in response to the woman’s claim, stating that it was not aware of any problems with its entry doors.After examining the evidence, a state court granted summary judgment in favor of the restaurant. The court found the woman failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the restaurant caused her injuries. The court explained that in premises liability claims concerning a breach of the general negligence standard, “mere speculation” as to causation is not enough to show causation and prevent summary judgment.

Classes of Entrants in Premises Liability Claims

Often, in premises liability claims, the same legal standards apply as in other negligence claims. However, in Florida, the general negligence standard does not apply when an injury is caused by a defect or a dangerous condition in the premises. In addition, in premises liability claims, the duty a landowner owes to a plaintiff depends on the relationship between the landowner and the plaintiff. There are three classes of entrants on land: trespassers, licensees, and invitees.

Court Rejects Defendant’s Appeal Based on Plaintiff’s Late Filing Because No Objection Was Made at Time of Alleged Error

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

“Better late than never” is not always true in the legal world. Sometimes, failing to object to an issue in a case may mean being barred from raising the issue at a later date. In a recent case, one state’s supreme court found a defendant’s claim that the plaintiff’s affidavits were filed late could not be raised on appeal and had been waived.In that case, a man had filed a medical malpractice claim against a hospital, alleging he was mishandled by an occupational therapist during a post-operative stay at the hospital and that he became quadriplegic as a result. The case went to trial, and the jury found the hospital was negligent in caring for the man but that it did not cause his quadriplegia. The man later died, and his wife took his place in the lawsuit.

The wife requested a new trial because her husband’s autopsy purportedly contradicted the jury’s decision on causation. The wife filed required affidavits from experts explaining the significance of the autopsy report, but she failed to pay the required filing fee. Two days later, the court canceled the time stamp and did not process the submissions, at which time the filing date had passed. The next day, the wife’s submissions were stamped as received with the required filing fees, and the affidavits were filed four days later. Importantly, the hospital did not object to the memorandum or affidavits as being untimely at the time. The court then granted the motion for a new trial based on the new evidence.

Court Upholds Jury’s Zero-Dollar Award in Car Accident Case

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

Sometimes proving the damages in an accident case is just as important as proving the defendant was at fault. In a recent case, one state’s supreme court upheld a jury’s award of zero dollars after a woman claimed she was injured by another driver in an auto accident. According to the court’s written opinion, the driver hit the back of the woman’s car when she was stopped at a traffic light. The driver admitted that he was at fault; however, he argued the woman did not sustain any damages in the accident. As a result, the case went to trial only on the issue of damages.The woman testified that at the time her car was hit, she did not suffer any cuts, scrapes, bruises, swelling, or other visible signs of injury. Her body did not come into contact with any part of her car. Photos taken of her car after the accident did not show any obvious damage.

After the accident, the woman was brought to a hospital at her request. She testified at trial that she had pain in her lower back and the right side of her neck. She said the hospital staff did an x-ray of her neck and back, gave her medicine, and recommended that she see an orthopedist. The woman went to an orthopedist and received physical therapy. However, she did not present any medical evidence to support her claim that her back and neck were injured. Finally, she testified that she had previously had back surgery before the accident occurred.