South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Court Permits Wrongful Death Claim to Proceed after Personal Injury Judgment Had Been Awarded Based on Defendant’s Same Negligent Conduct

Published on: August 4, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Maryland Supreme Court recently affirmed a lower court’s decision allowing the family of a deceased child to pursue a wrongful death claim against a negligent medical provider who allegedly caused the death of their son. The case is unique because the son, before his death, had already collected a substantial award of damages from the defendant, based on his own personal injury claim. As a result of the most recent ruling, the parents of the child will not be prevented from pursuing their own wrongful death claim for damages, although the boy himself had already received damages based on the defendant’s wrongful conduct.

Alleged Medical Mistakes Result in the Plaintiffs’ Child Being Born With Severe Disabilities

The plaintiffs in the case of Spangler v. McQuitty are the parents of a boy who was born with severe disabilities in May 1995. A personal injury lawsuit was filed on the boy’s behalf that alleged the doctor who delivered the child failed to gain the informed consent of his mother before delivering the child, which resulted in a complete placental abruption birth injury and the child’s development of severe cerebral palsy. After a jury trial on the child’s claim, he was awarded damages for his injuries, lost future wages, pain and suffering, and future medical expenses.

After the Child Dies, His Parents File a Separate Wrongful Death Action on Their Own Behalf

At some point after the personal injury case was filed, the child passed away as a result of his severe disabilities. Subsequently, his parents filed a separate cause of action against the defendant, alleging that his negligent actions proximately resulted in the premature death of their child and seeking damages to compensate them for their mental anguish and grief related to their loss. In response to the lawsuit, the defendant argued that he had already been held accountable for his act of negligence in the personal injury lawsuit that was previously decided and could not be held accountable again for the same conduct. The trial court agreed with the defendant’s arguments, causing the parents to appeal.

Court Rules in Favor of Plaintiff Who Tripped and Injured Herself While Crossing the Street

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

The Michigan Supreme Court recently released a decision reversing a lower appellate decision in favor of the governmental defendants in a negligence case filed by a woman who was injured while she was crossing a public highway operated by the defendants. The plaintiff’s claim that the defendant had been negligent in failing to maintain the highway in reasonable repair in order to be safe for public travel was rejected by the lower courts, who found as a matter of law that the highway was reasonably safe. The state supreme court reversed, ruling that the plaintiff had raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the highway was unsafe, and her claim should have been heard by a jury.

The Plaintiff Is Injured After She Trips Over Uneven Concrete While Crossing a Public Highway

The plaintiff in the case of Kozak v. Lincoln Park is a woman who was injured while crossing a public highway that was operated by the defendant. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the woman tripped over a three-inch height differential between two slabs of concrete in the middle of the road and sustained injuries as a result. The woman filed a personal injury lawsuit against the city, alleging that the city had a duty to maintain the public roads in reasonably safe condition, and the violation of that duty directly resulted in her injuries.

The Trial Court Rules in Favor of the Defendants

Before a trial was held on the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant filed a motion alleging the roadway was safe. In response to the motion, the plaintiff submitted documentary evidence to show that the road was not safe, including evidence that it had been in poor condition for over six years when the accident occurred. The defendant’s motion included the opinion testimony of the city’s Director of Public Services that the roadway was “reasonably safe.” Without considering the plaintiff’s response to the motion, the trial court decided that the roadway was reasonably safe and that the plaintiff did not sufficiently respond to the defendant’s motion, ultimately dismissing the plaintiff’s case.

Federal Appeals Court Affirms Judgment for Defendant in Product Liability Lawsuit

Published on: July 29, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals recently released an opinion affirming a jury verdict in favor of a defendant after a trial was held on the plaintiffs’ allegations surrounding the death of their 23-month-old son. The boy drowned in a pond after he climbed from his crib in the middle of the night and left his home, getting past a doorknob cover that was intended to keep the child from using the door. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the district court was mistaken in permitting testimony that the boy’s mother failed to secure a secondary chain lock on the door on the night of the boy’s death.

The Tragic Drowning of the Plaintiffs’ Child

The plaintiffs in the case of Coterel v. Dorel Juvenile Group were the parents of a boy who died after he wandered from the family home in the middle of the night and drowned in a nearby pond. The boy’s parents awoke in the morning to find the front door to their home ajar and the boy missing from his crib. Minutes later, the boy’s father found him floating unresponsive in the pond, approximately 50 yards from the home. The defendant in the case was the manufacturer of a doorknob cover that the couple had received as a gift and had been using to keep the child from operating the front door. After the boy’s death, the plaintiffs filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the manufacturer, alleging that the doorbell cover was a dangerous product that failed to work as intended and that it was negligently manufactured and marketed by the defendant.

The Jury Found the Defendant Was Not at Fault at Trial

The plaintiffs’ product liability and negligence claims went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. During trial, evidence was introduced over the plaintiffs’ objection that the parents had previously witnessed their son defeating the doorknob cover, and they installed a chain lock on the front door after noticing this. The defendant argued at trial that the plaintiffs knew the doorknob cover wouldn’t keep the child from leaving the home, and they were negligent by failing to use the additional lock. The jury was not required to explain their decision on the verdict form and indicated only that the defendant should not be liable for the boy’s death.

State Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Government Defendant in Boating Accident Case

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

The Iowa Supreme Court recently released a decision in which they affirmed a lower court’s decision in a wrongful death case filed by the family of a boy who was killed in a boating accident on a lake. The claim, which had been made against the state Department of Natural Resources, alleged that the state agency was liable for damages by allowing a submerged dredge pipe to be kept in the lake, creating an unreasonably dangerous condition that resulted in the deadly accident. Based on the most recent ruling, the plaintiffs will be unable to recover damages from the Department of Natural Resources for the death of their son.

Boat Operator Ignores Warning Buoys and Crashes Into Submerged Pipe

The plaintiffs in the case of McFarlin v. State were the surviving family members of a boy who was killed while riding in a speedboat on an Iowa lake. According to the facts noted in the appellate opinion, the operator of the boat and the boy’s mother’s boyfriend failed to notice or avoid a submerged dredge pipe that had been placed in the lake by the defendant. The boat operator drove the boat between two warning buoys, colliding with the submerged pipe and flipping the engine up into the passenger compartment of the boat. The propeller, which was still moving at this time, struck the boy and killed him.

The Plaintiffs’ Allegations Against the Defendant

After the boy’s death, the plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the state agency that was responsible for the placement of the dredge pipe. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the defendant should be held accountable for the damages because the dredge pipe was placed in the lake in alleged violation of a state regulation that stated such equipment should not be placed in a manner that creates a danger to other users of the lake. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants early in the case proceedings, finding that the plaintiff could not sue the government for its alleged negligence, based on sovereign immunity grounds.

State Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Plaintiff in Auto-Pedestrian Accident Case

Published on: July 22, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The California Court of Appeals recently released a decision reversing a lower court’s ruling in favor of the defendant in a premises liability lawsuit filed after the plaintiff was hit by a car while crossing the street from an overflow parking lot to the defendant’s establishment. The trial court had ruled that the defendant could not be held responsible for the man’s injuries because the accident occurred on a public street that the defendant did not own or control. The appellate court found that the defendant may be held accountable for negligence based on their ownership of the overflow parking lot and a duty to provide reasonable care. Based on the court of appeals’ opinion, the plaintiff may receive damages from his claim by a trial or if a settlement is reached.

The Plaintiff is Injured Crossing from the Overflow Parking Lot to the Church

The plaintiff in the case of Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church was a church member who intended to attend a church event in Sacramento, California on an evening in November of 2010. According to the facts discussed in the opinion, when the plaintiff arrived to the church the primary parking lot was full. The plaintiff was instead told to park in an overflow lot, which was located directly across a five-lane road from the church and had parking attendants on duty.

After parking his car, the plaintiff did not receive instructions from the parking attendants regarding how to cross the street and there was no crosswalk at the nearest intersection so he attempted to cross directly in front of the church, along with several other churchgoers. As the small group was crossing the street, a vehicle approached on the roadway and the parishioners began running, however, the plaintiff couldn’t avoid being struck by the vehicle.

State Supreme Court Rules in Favor of State Park in Premises Liability Lawsuit

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

The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently reversed a lower court’s decision to grant the plaintiffs a new trial in a negligence and premises liability lawsuit, and instead instructed the court to enter judgment in favor of the defendant as a matter of law. The case was filed by a man who broke his neck and was paralyzed after he dove into a pond at a World War II veterans memorial park that was operated by the state. He alleged that the defendants were negligent in their operation of the pond by allowing swimming but failing to adequately warn the public of the shallow water and diving danger.

The Plaintiff Breaks His Neck After Diving into Murky Water

The plaintiff in the case of Roy v. Rhode Island is a man who was severely injured and left paralyzed from the neck down after he dove from an apparent diving platform into shallow water in a pond on the grounds of a veterans memorial park operated by the defendant. According to the facts, as reflected in the appellate opinion, the pond was man-made and operated much like a swimming pool. There were “no swimming” signs posted around the pond, although swimming would be permitted occasionally and the state employed lifeguards, even at times when swimming was not technically allowed. The plaintiff’s injury occurred when he dove into the pond from a wall that had reportedly been used frequently by members of the public for diving, although diving was not permitted, and the depth of the pond floor varied considerably.

The Trial, the Verdict, and the Appeal

After a long jury trial and over a week of deliberations, the jury reached a verdict that found the defendant had been negligent in failing to warn the plaintiff of the latent danger posed by the shallow water. However, the jury decided not to award any damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that the verdict was not consistent with the instructions given to the jury, and demanded a new trial, which was granted by the trial court. The defendant appealed the ruling to the state supreme court, additionally arguing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the state recreational use statute.

State Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Medical Malpractice Plaintiff’s Attempt to Extend Statute of Limitations

Published on: July 15, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Connecticut Supreme Court recently released an opinion discussing their decision to uphold the reversal of a trial court’s ruling that a medical malpractice plaintiff’s claim was time-barred because it was filed after the statute of limitations had expired. The most recent ruling held that the plaintiff’s argument for extending the statute of limitations based on the “continuing course of treatment doctrine” should have been addressed by the trial court. Based on the ruling, the plaintiff may be compensated for her malpractice claim.

Surgical Sponge is Left Inside Plaintiff’s Body After She Has Gastric Bypass Surgery

The plaintiff in the case of Cefaratti v. Aranow is a woman who had a gastric bypass surgery performed by the defendant as a treatment for morbid obesity. According to the case summary discussed in the appellate opinion, the woman began suffering from abdominal pain approximately one year after the surgery was performed. After she started feeling the pain, she notified the defendant of her symptoms at several follow-up appointments after the surgery, although the defendant did not diagnose that a sponge had been left in her body.

Nearly five years after the surgery, a CT scan was performed on the plaintiff’s chest and abdomen by a different physician for an unrelated medical issue, and the sponge was discovered. After confronting the defendant about the sponge and having it surgically removed, the plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against him, seeking damages based on the allegation that he negligently failed to remove the sponge during the gastric bypass surgery.

State Supreme Court Blocks Trial Judge from Enforcing Ruling Against Wrongful Death Plaintiff

Published on: July 12, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma recently released a decision granting a plaintiff’s request to prevent the enforcement of an order issued by the judge presiding over a wrongful death case. The initial order had denied the plaintiff’s request to amend their complaint and add additional defendants of whom the plaintiff was initially unaware. Although the state supreme court denied the plaintiff’s request to immediately force the trial judge to grant their motion to amend the complaint, the most recent ruling will result in further proceedings at the district court level to determine if the plaintiff is entitled to hold the additional parties responsible in the wrongful death case.

The Plaintiff’s Claim of Nursing Home Neglect and Wrongful Death

The plaintiff in the case of Maree v. Willow Park Health Care Center is the personal representative of the estate of a woman who died while she was a patient at a long-term nursing facility operated by the defendants. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the lawsuit alleges that the defendant negligently failed to respond to an assistance call made by the patient, resulting in her suffering injuries in a fall while she attempted to use the bathroom unassisted. The plaintiff’s claim further alleges that the defendants failed to adequately respond after the patient was injured, ultimately resulting in her death two days later. Based on the alleged negligence of the nursing home operators, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit seeking damages from the defendant.

The Plaintiff’s Attempt to Pierce the Corporate Veil is Denied

After filing the wrongful death claim, the plaintiff became aware of additional parties who acted as owners/managers of the defendant nursing home corporation and sought to add them as defendants to the case. Although corporate owners and members cannot generally be held personally accountable for negligence committed by the corporation, the plaintiff argued that case discovery would find evidence that the additional defendants were personally involved in the daily operations of the nursing home and could be held personally accountable for their role in the patient’s death. After hearing argument on the plaintiff’s motion, the trial court ruled that the proposed defendants could not be added and denied the plaintiff’s request to conduct additional discovery on the defendants. The plaintiff appealed the ruling to the state supreme court and sought an order blocking the enforcement of the trial court’s order.

Personal Injury Claim Dismissed after Attorney Misses Hearing

Published on: July 8, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently published an opinion that affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss a plaintiff’s personal injury lawsuit. The reason for the dismissal was what appeared to be a simple clerical error, although the plaintiff’s attorney failed to respond to the motion to dismiss or attend the hearing that was scheduled to address the defendant’s motion. As a result of the state supreme court ruling, the plaintiff may be unable to receive compensation for his alleged injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence.

Plaintiff Was Allegedly Injured at Defendant’s Nightclub and Files Suit

According to the facts explained in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff filed a personal injury claim against the defendant, who was the owner of a bar and nightclub, after the plaintiff was injured in a fight at the nightclub. The plaintiff retained an attorney and filed a personal injury claim against the defendant. The plaintiff’s complaint misstated the date of the plaintiff’s injuries, claiming that the incident occurred over three years prior to the date the complaint was filed.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the three-year statute of limitations had passed, and the plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed too late. A hearing was scheduled for the parties to argue the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff’s attorney could have presumably requested to amend the complaint with the correct dates, although no objection was filed, and the plaintiff’s attorney didn’t attend the hearing. Since the defendant’s motion was not contested, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s case.

State Supreme Court Reinstates Jury Verdict after Considering Jurisdictional Issue

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

The Michigan Supreme Court recently released an opinion that reversed a lower appellate court’s ruling setting aside a jury verdict in favor of an auto accident plaintiff over a jurisdictional issue. The plaintiff’s award had been vacated by the state court of appeals because the amount of damages that she claimed to have suffered at trial exceeded the $25,000 jurisdictional limit of the court where her initial complaint was filed. The state supreme court reversed the court of appeals’ decision, ruling that since the plaintiff’s complaint requested damages within the jurisdictional limit, and the final award was within that limit, the trial court had jurisdiction over her claim regardless of the evidence actually presented at trial suggesting damages in excess of the limit. Based on the most recent ruling, the plaintiff will receive the $25,000 awarded to her at trial, but she will not be compensated for any damages she incurred in excess of that amount.

The Plaintiff Was Seriously Injured in an Accident with a Driver Insured by the Defendant

The plaintiff in the case of Hodge v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company was a woman who was struck by another vehicle while driving and suffered serious injuries. After sustaining the injuries, the woman filed a personal injury lawsuit against the insurance company that represented the other driver.

The plaintiff’s suit was filed in a county district court in Michigan, which only has jurisdiction over claims demanding $25,000 or less in damages. Although the plaintiff’s complaint specifically requested damages “not in excess of $25,000,” it was apparent before trial that she would present evidence demonstrating over $25,000 in damages. The district court allowed the case to proceed to trial, and the plaintiff was awarded approximately $86,000 by the jury, which was subsequently reduced by the judge to the $25,000 jurisdictional limit.