South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

According to Recent Study, Florida Ranks Among States with the Worst Drivers

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

Florida has long had a reputation for being a state with a large number of “bad drivers.” Indeed, Florida drivers are involved in over 250,000 auto accidents each year, with over 100,000 of those accidents resulting in serious injuries. In all, Florida car accidents are responsible for approximately 1,800 fatalities each year.It may come as no surprise, then, that according to a study released earlier this month, Florida ranks among the states with the worst drivers in the country. The study took various variables into account, including the total number of drivers, the number of DUI accidents, the number of traffic tickets issued, the total number of traffic fatalities, and the number of uninsured drivers. After all of the data was analyzed, Florida was ranked as the state with the worst drivers.

Interestingly, one key variable that stuck out when looking at Florida driver data was the unusual number of internet searches for “speeding tickets” and “traffic tickets.” Presumably, if a motorist is researching traffic tickets, they have recently been issued a ticket or warning by a police officer. Florida also had the second-highest rate of uninsured drivers in the nation, second only to Oklahoma.

Florida’s Assumption of the Risk Doctrine

Published on: August 30, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Assumption of the risk is a common defense used by many defendants in Florida personal injury cases. When it applies, the doctrine prevents a plaintiff from pursuing a claim against a defendant if the plaintiff was engaging in a dangerous activity for which the risks were known. For example, a football player may be prevented from suing another player based on injuries received on the field because the injured player likely knew the risks involved with playing football but continued to play nonetheless.In Florida, strict assumption of the risk is very limited. In fact, pursuant to a recent case decided earlier this year, the doctrine only applies when there is an express contract not to sue or in the context of contact sports. That being said, the doctrine of assumption of the risk can still work against a Florida personal injury plaintiff because a jury can take a plaintiff’s assumption of the risks involved in an activity into account when determining the relative fault of each party.

A recent case illustrates how courts apply the assumption of the risk doctrine. While Florida’s law is different from that applied in the case, the case is still instructive to Florida personal injury plaintiffs because the division of fault between the plaintiff and the defendant is an issue for the jury to determine.

Establishing Causation in South Florida Car Accidents

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

There are several elements that a plaintiff must establish before they are able to recover financially after a South Florida car accident. One of these key elements is causation. Simply stated, the causation element requires a plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s conduct was the legal cause of their injuries, or, to use the legal terminology, the “proximate cause.”There is not an exact definition of the term proximate cause, and determining whether a defendant’s actions constitute proximate cause is normally left up to a jury. However, in some situations, a court may determine whether proximate cause exists as a matter of law through a summary judgment proceeding. Whether being decided by a judge or jury, the question is whether the defendant’s actions more likely than not “foreseeably and substantially contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.” Importantly, proximate cause does not need to be the only cause of an accident.

A recent personal injury case illustrates how one state court’s causation analysis resulted in the dismissal of a car accident victim’s case.

When Can an Injured Employee Seek Compensation through a Workplace Injury Lawsuit?

Published on: August 21, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Workplace injuries occur frequently in many professions, and this is especially the case for jobs in the construction and manufacturing industries. When a worker is injured on the job, there are several potential avenues that the worker can pursue to obtain compensation for their injuries.The first option is a workers’ compensation claim. Florida workers’ compensation claims are filed by an injured employee against an employer for an injury that occurred on the job while they were acting within the scope of their employment. If they are successful in a workers’ compensation claim, an injured worker can obtain temporary or permanent benefits while they are unable to return to work. However, once a worker is able to return to work, the benefits cease. Additionally, compensation for pain and suffering due to the accident will not be available through a Florida workers’ compensation claim. However, if a workers’ compensation claim is available to an injured worker, that will be his sole remedy, meaning that he will not be able to pursue compensation through a Florida personal injury case.

Workers who are injured due to the fault of a third party (i.e., not their employer) can seek benefits through a Florida personal injury claim against that negligent third party. If they are successful in a Florida personal injury case, an injured worker can recover compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and any pain and suffering they endured as a result of the accident. A recent case illustrates how an injured employee unsuccessfully attempted to hold a third party liable for his workplace injuries.

The Importance of Pre-Trial Evidentiary Rulings in Florida Personal Injury Cases

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

The judge’s primary function in a Florida personal injury case is to make sure that the trial follows all of the applicable rules, both substantive and procedural. One of the most important tasks a judge performs is determining which evidence is admissible and may be considered by the jury. Indeed, in many cases, powerful evidence that could change the outcome of a case is not admitted for a variety of reasons.Evidentiary issues are normally handled in pre-trial motions, before the jury is empaneled. This way, the jury is not at risk of hearing any of the contested evidence, should the judge determine that it is not admissible. These pre-trial motion hearings can be critical to a Florida personal injury case, since they often determine the path a case will take. For example, if a plaintiff is able to get a pre-trial ruling admitting favorable evidence, the defense may consider settling the case rather than taking the chance of proceeding to trial.

In a recent Florida appellate opinion, the court discussed which evidence should have been admitted in a car accident case.

The Use of Expert Witnesses in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: August 14, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida personal injury cases are routinely decided by a jury, unless both parties agree that a judge should hear the case. When a jury is empaneled, it should be representative of the community where the case will be heard. Almost always, juries consist of laypeople, meaning that the individual jurors have not been schooled on the law or how it applies to a given case. The judge’s job is to assist the jury by providing instructions on what the ultimate question in the case is and what the jurors should consider in making their determination.In some Florida personal injury cases, confusing scientific or medical issues arise. In such cases, an expert witness may be required to explain to the jury certain principles or concepts. An expert witness is usually a professional in the field at issue who has specialized knowledge through experience or education. In many Florida personal injury cases, each side presents their own expert witness in hopes of persuading the jury. There are complex rules regarding the admissibility of expert testimony; however, once testimony is admitted, it is up to the fact-finder to determine how convincing the testimony is. A recent case illustrates the difference between admitting evidence and assigning the evidence weight.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was driving along the highway, about to pass a Department of Transportation vehicle that was pulled off to the side of the road. As she passed, she heard a loud noise. The next thing she knew, her car was upside down and sliding along the roadway. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident, and she filed a personal injury lawsuit against the Department of Transportation, as the employer of the driver who was alleged to have pulled out in front of her.

Florida Appellate Court Finds Hotel Did Not Have a Duty to Erect Barriers To Keep Traffic Out of Pool Area

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

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Florida issued a written opinion in a tragic Florida car accident case that claimed the life of the plaintiff’s pregnant wife. The case involved the question of whether a road-side hotel had a duty to prevent traffic from a nearby road from entering the hotel’s pool area in the event of an out-of-control vehicle. Ultimately, the court concluded that the hotel did not have a duty to prevent this type of accident, and it dismissed the plaintiff’s case.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and his pregnant wife were sitting poolside under a cabana while staying at the defendant hotel. While the couple was under the cabana, a drunk driver lost control of her vehicle, jumped a curb, and came careening into the hotel’s pool area. The car crashed into the cabana, killing the plaintiff’s wife and injuring the plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against both the driver of the car as well as the hotel. The plaintiff presented evidence that it was common for motorists to speed on the road on which the hotel was located. An engineer testified that, due to a curve in the road, at some point, vehicles traveling along the road are directly facing the pool area. The plaintiff argued that, given these facts, the hotel should have taken additional precautions to prevent this type of accident.

Liability in South Florida Sports Injury Cases

Published on: August 7, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Most athletes know that playing sports can result in certain types of injuries. Most often, these injuries are muscle sprains or other injuries related to the overuse of specific muscle groups. However, certain sports present a higher risk of serious injuries. In some cases, those who are seriously injured while participating in a sporting activity may be able to seek compensation for their injuries from the organization that oversees the activity. Often, this is either a sports league or a school.Both sports leagues and schools that offer sports programs owe players a duty to ensure that the sporting event is run in a safe manner and that players are appropriately warned of the risks involved with participation. If an organization fails to warn a player who is later injured due to an undisclosed risk, the player may have a case for negligence against the organization.

Prevalence of CTE Among Football Players Much Greater than Originally Thought

Earlier this month, a neuropathological study was released, finding that football players at all levels may be at a greater risk for developing chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) than previously thought. CTE has frequently been in the news over the past several years, in part due to the lawsuit that several hundred former NFL players and their families have filed against the NFL.

The Strict Requirements that Florida Medical Malpractice Plaintiffs Must Follow

Published on: August 3, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Claims of medical negligence in Florida are subject to strict rules that, if ignored, may result in a case getting prematurely dismissed before it is ever even heard by a jury. For example, Florida medical malpractice cases must be filed within a certain period of time, as outlined in the relevant statute of limitations. In addition, Florida medical malpractice claims must be accompanied by a pre-suit affidavit filled out by a medical professional, stating that the plaintiff’s case has merit in the professional’s opinion. Also, medical malpractice plaintiffs must take care to adequately allege the specific acts on which they are basing their case. A recent medical malpractice case out of Rhode Island illustrates how a plaintiff’s failure to comply with these procedural rules may result in unfavorable results.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff – a breast cancer survivor – decided to undergo reconstructive breast surgery. She discussed the idea with the defendant doctor, who explained the risks involved with the procedure. Specifically, due to the radiation that the plaintiff received in her left breast to treat the cancer, she was at an elevated risk of having complications on that breast.

The plaintiff initially agreed to have surgery on both breasts, despite the risks. However, in her complaint, she claims to have changed her mind and have decided to only proceed with the surgery on her right breast. She claims to have let the defendant know of her decision. The defendant’s version of the events is different. He claimed that the plaintiff never changed her mind, or if she did, he was not made aware of her decision to do so.

Florida Appellate Court Finds Conflicting Evidentiary Ruling Prevented Plaintiff from Getting a Fair Trial

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

Earlier this month, a Florida appellate court issued a written opinion in a Florida personal injury lawsuit brought by a woman who developed lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) after smoking cigarettes manufactured by the defendant. The jury was tasked with answering: “Was [Plaintiff] addicted to cigarettes containing nicotine and, if so, was her addiction a legal cause of her lung cancer and/or COPD?”During the trial, the plaintiff called her treating pulmonologist. The plaintiff’s attorney attempted to ask the pulmonologist if the plaintiff was addicted to cigarettes; however, the defense objected. The court sustained the objection, preventing the pulmonologist from answering the question.

When it was the defendant’s turn to cross-examine the witness, the defense attorney asked the pulmonologist if he thought that the plaintiff would have been able to quit smoking once she was “sufficiently motivated to do so.” The plaintiff objected, but the court overruled the objection, and the pulmonologist was allowed to respond. He agreed that the plaintiff was able to quit when she was sufficiently motivated to do so.