South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Rejection of Plaintiff’s Slip-and-Fall Case Affirmed by Appellate Court on Review

Published on: December 28, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently published an opinion affirming a lower federal district court’s judgment in favor of the defendant in a negligence lawsuit filed by a plaintiff after she was injured in a fall. The plaintiff was a woman who was seriously injured after she slipped on rocks in a parking lot that was adjacent to and operated by the defendant, a national hardware store chain. Both the district court and the Seventh Circuit ruled that the woman presented insufficient evidence to support her negligence claim and that she was not entitled to plead her case for damages to a jury or judge at a trial. As a result of the appellate court ruling, the woman will not be compensated for her claim or the damages she suffered as a result of the fall.

The Plaintiff Is Injured After Slipping on Rocks Used and Sold by the Defendant

According to the appellate court’s discussion of the plaintiff’s initial complaint, the injuries resulting in the case of Piotrowski v. Menard, Inc. were caused when the plaintiff slipped on two or more rocks that were in the parking lot of the defendant’s store near the exit. The plaintiff claimed that the rocks on which she tripped were similar or identical to rocks that the defendant used in a decorative planter near the site of her fall. The rocks were also sold by the defendant inside the store as decorative river rock.

After she fell in the parking lot, she was transported by ambulance to a local hospital and treated for several broken bones and torn ligaments. Within one year of the fall, the plaintiff had been hospitalized four additional times and undergone three surgeries as a result of the injuries she suffered in the fall.

State Supreme Court Rules Against Condominium Association in Slip-and-Fall Accident Case

Published on: December 26, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Illinois Supreme Court recently released an opinion affirming a lower appellate court’s decision not to grant immunity to a condominium association after the plaintiff was injured after slipping and falling on an ice patch and filed a premises liability lawsuit. The plaintiff’s case alleged that the defendant property management company negligently maintained the condominium complex where the plaintiff resided, resulting in her fall.During the early case proceedings, the trial court applied a state statute concerning liability for improper snow and ice removal to find the defendant immune from liability for the plaintiff’s claim, granting summary judgment to the defendant. On appeal, the higher courts ruled that the plaintiff’s claim did not trigger the immunity statute and reversed the trial court. As a result of the recent rulings, the plaintiff’s case will return to the trial court and proceed toward a trial or settlement.

The Plaintiff Suffers an Injury After Slipping on the Sidewalk Outside Her Home

The plaintiff in the case of Murphy v. Lieberman Management Services is a Illinois woman who resided in a condominium complex that was managed by the defendant. About 10 days after a severe winter storm covered the area in over a foot of snow, the woman fell on a patch of ice that had accumulated in the parking lot near her apartment. The woman claimed that her fall was a result of the design of the parking lot and clogged gutters that were supposed to drain rainwater and snowmelt from areas where residents and visitors would be walking. Alleging that the property management company was responsible for ensuring the residents’ safety but failed to adequately design drainage and snowmelt management systems, the woman sued the defendant in state court for negligence and sought compensation for her injuries and loss.

State Appellate Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Injury Case After Attorney Admits to Mistake

Published on: December 20, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A panel of the California Court of Appeals recently published an opinion in which they affirmed a state district court’s decision to set aside the dismissal of a personal injury case, which was previously dismissed after the plaintiff’s attorney failed to pay a change-of-venue fee and did not respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss or attend the hearing that resulted in the dismissal of the case. On appeal, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the initial dismissal was procedurally inappropriate, and she was not entitled to the relief that had been granted. In disposing of the appeal, the appellate court emphasized that procedural rules governing applications for relief or reconsideration of an order or judgment are designed in part to protect litigants from the undeserved harms that can result from attorney mistakes, and to give each person their day in court.

The Plaintiff Is Injured as a Passenger on a Private Bus Line

The plaintiff in the case of Gee v. Greyhound is a woman who was injured when the Greyhound bus on which she was riding was involved in a crash, According to her initial complaint, the bus driver was traveling at an excessive rate of speed and lost control of the vehicle, causing it to crash into other vehicles on the road and resulting in the plaintiff and at least 20 other passengers and commuters suffering serious injuries. After the accident, the plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the operator of the bus line as well as the bus driver, seeking damages as compensation for the expenses and loss she suffered in the crash.

Federal Appeals Court Reverses Judgment Against Plaintiff in Product Liability Claim

Published on: December 19, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently published an opinion partially reversing a district court’s ruling in favor of the defendant in a product liability lawsuit filed by a man who was seriously burned in a fire that ignited while he was using a cleaning product manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiff sued the defendant under several theories of liability, including failure to warn as well as strict product liability and negligence.

The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on all of the plaintiff’s claims, but the Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff’s claims surrounding the allegedly defective design of the defendant’s product should not have been resolved without a trial. As a result of the recent appellate ruling, the plaintiff’s case will be remanded to the federal district court for further proceedings that may ultimately result in an award of damages for the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff Is Seriously Burned While Cleaning His Basement Floor with the Defendant’s Product

The plaintiff in the case of Suarez v. W.M. Barr & Co. is a man who attempted to clean paint off the floor of his basement with Goof Off, a cleaning product manufactured by the defendant. The main ingredient in the product is acetone, which is a highly flammable chemical that evaporates at room temperature. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff read the warnings on the product label before he poured the product on the floor of his basement floor and started scrubbing the area with a brush in accordance with the instructions. Although the exact cause of ignition was in dispute, a fire broke out and resulted in serious burns to the plaintiff’s head, face, neck, and hands. After suffering the injuries, the plaintiff sued the defendant in federal court, alleging that the warnings on the product label were inadequate and that the product itself was unreasonably dangerous.

School Authorities Received Multiple Complaints About Bus Driver Prior to Tragic Fatal Accident

Published on: December 6, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Parents and families remain devastated by last month’s tragic school bus accident in Tennessee that left six children dead and several others seriously injured when a speeding bus drove off-route and off the road into a tree and rolled on its side. Recent developments in the tragic story are generating more questions than answers and likely aggravating the contentious relationship between school authorities and the parents, who are upset that the bus driver was allowed to continue driving their children after warning signs that many say should have resulted in his being fired or at least investigated. The bus driver has since been arrested and charged with six counts of automobile homicide and reckless endangerment.

Parents Are Upset that Complaints about the Driver Were Not Addressed Before the Crash

According to a national news source, there were several written complaints filed by students, parents, and even school employees concerning the reckless driving of the man who was driving the bus before last month’s deadly accident. One student reported that he believed the man was intentionally trying to hurt the children by driving dangerously, and he told them that he did not care for their safety, causing some students to avoid riding that bus. These warnings did not cause authorities to suspend the driver or otherwise address the issue, leaving some parents angry.

Federal Appeals Court Rules that Insurance Company May Have Acted in Bad Faith

Published on: December 5, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently published an opinion that reversed a lower court’s ruling in favor of the defendant, concerning the plaintiff’s claim that the insurer wrongfully delayed the payment of benefits for her personal injury claim. The appeals court’s reversal of the lower court’s granting of summary judgment to the defendant on this claim will result in the case going back down and proceeding toward a trial if the parties are unable to settle before that time.The plaintiff in the case of Peden v. State Farm had been seriously injured while riding in a car that was involved in a DUI accident, and she allegedly suffered damages in excess of the policy limits of the insurance held by the driver of the vehicle involved in the crash. Before filing suit, the plaintiff made a claim with the defendant, seeking compensation for her injuries, and she was paid the maximum amount under the driver’s bodily injury liability policy limit. She sought the balance of her damages through her own policy’s uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, but her claim was denied.

The Plaintiff Files a Lawsuit to Enforce Underinsured Motorist Claim and Alleges Bad Faith by the Defendant

After her claim for underinsured motorist protection coverage was denied, the woman filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant in federal court to enforce the full benefits of the coverage. In addition to her claim for compensation related to the damages she suffered, she sought additional damages, as permitted under Colorado law, since the defendant denied her initial claim without good reason or even a proper investigation, forcing her to bring a claim that should not have been necessary. After the lawsuit was filed, the defendant paid out the full amount of coverage.

Dismissal of Rollerblading Injury Case Affirmed by Appellate Court

Published on: December 1, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of North Dakota recently published an opinion affirming a trial court’s ruling dismissing a personal injury and premises liability claim filed by a plaintiff who was injured when she fell while rollerblading in a city park. The district court had ruled that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations for negligence lawsuits against government actors in North Dakota.Initially, the plaintiffs served the defendant with the lawsuit within the statute of limitations, but the service did not meet the procedural requirements set out by state law and was found to be invalid by the courts. The plaintiff’s other arguments on appeal were also rejected by the state supreme court, and they will be unable to recover compensation for the injuries suffered in the fall.

The Plaintiff Suffers a Fall While Rollerblading in the Park

The plaintiffs in the case of Frith v. City of Fargo were a husband and wife who were exercising in a park operated by the defendant on a day in the summer of 2012. The wife was rollerblading on a multi-use pathway when she tripped and lost control after running into a raised bit of soft patching material that had been used to fill a crack in the pathway. According to the facts in the appellate opinion, the woman claimed that she could not see the hazard, and no warning was posted. Nearly three years after the accident, the plaintiffs attempted to serve the defendant with a personal injury and premises liability lawsuit that alleged the defendant was in control of the park’s maintenance and allowed a dangerous hazard to be created on the pathway without cordoning off the area or otherwise giving an appropriate warning.

Court Upholds Judgment for Defendants in Chain-Reaction Truck Accident Case

Published on: December 1, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Mississippi recently published an opinion affirming a state district court’s ruling that granted summary judgment to two defendants in a lawsuit based on a semi-truck accident. The high court rejected the plaintiff’s claim for damages against the driver of the truck, who caused a separate accident that occurred before the accident that injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed suit against this particular defendant in an attempt to hold him responsible for an accident that was caused in part by the slowdown and traffic jam that resulted from the initial accident.By affirming the district court’s granting of summary judgment to the defendant in this case, the court showed how a defendant may not be legally responsible for the result of his or her negligence if there is an intervening or superseding cause between the initial act of negligence and the alleged injury.

Two Accidents on a Busy Highway

The accident that injured the plaintiff in the case of Ready v. RWI Transportation, Inc. was the second of two closely linked crashes that were the subject of this litigation. According to the facts as discussed by the appellate court, the defendant was driving a semi-truck and negligently caused an accident with a pickup truck that was driven by a man who was not a party to this lawsuit.

State Supreme Court Rejects Governmental Immunity Previously Granted to School Administrators in Auto-Pedestrian Collision Lawsuit

Published on: November 23, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut recently published an opinion reversing a lower court’s ruling to grant the defendants in a personal injury lawsuit immunity from the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff had been struck by a car while crossing the street onto the grounds of a public school, and he filed a negligence lawsuit against the driver of the vehicle that hit him, as well as against several school employees, the town, and members of the school board. The plaintiff’s claim alleged that the defendants breached their duty to the plaintiff to provide a safe school environment by failing to properly monitor and control the vehicular and foot traffic of students coming to and from the school.

The Plaintiff Is Struck by a Car as He Crossed the Street

In September 2007, the plaintiff in the case of Strycharz v. Cady was a freshman at the Bacon Academy, a public high school in Colchester, Connecticut. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff left the school grounds to smoke a cigarette after he was dropped off by the school bus but before classes began.

As the plaintiff attempted to cross the street at a crosswalk and visit a popular spot for students to smoke, he was struck and injured by a driver who failed to yield at the crosswalk. As a result of his injuries, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against several parties, including many school and town officials who allegedly knew of the dangers to students presented by traffic before and after school but failed to address the issue.

After Two Appeals and a Six-Year Wait, Accident Victim Will Receive the Full Amount of Jury Award

Published on: November 21, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Colorado recently published an opinion reversing a lower court’s decision permitting the trial judge hearing an auto accident case to reduce the plaintiff’s award after the jury returned a verdict in his favor. The plaintiff was initially forced to sue his own insurance company after he was injured in an accident with an uninsured driver, and his claim for damages under his uninsured motorist coverage was denied.After a jury found that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief he requested, his insurance company successfully asked the trial court to reduce the judgment by an amount he had received from the company through a different type of coverage. In reversing the lower court’s decisions, the court held that coverage for uninsured or underinsured motorists in that state cannot be reduced by a setoff from any other coverage. As a result of the recent ruling, the plaintiff will receive the entire amount that was awarded to him by the jury.

The Plaintiff Is Injured in an Accident with an Uninsured Motorist

The plaintiff in the case of Calderon v. American Family Insurance was involved in an auto accident with a negligent and uninsured motorist in August 2010. The plaintiff carried an auto insurance policy though the defendant insurance company, which included $5,000 in no-fault coverage for medical expenses as well as $300,000 in coverage for damages incurred in the event of an accident with an uninsured or underinsured driver. After receiving medical treatment, the plaintiff had incurred over $40,000 in medical expenses. He then made a claim for those damages and others to his insurance company. The insurance company had previously paid out $5,000 directly to the medical providers pursuant to the no fault medical coverage, but it disputed the remaining amount of damages that the plaintiff requested.