South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

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.

Court Affirms Judgment for Defendant in Case Filed after Fatal Skateboarding Accident

Published on: June 30, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of the State of California recently released an opinion in which they affirmed a lower court’s ruling granting summary judgment to the defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit. The negligence suit was filed by the family members of a boy who died after striking a manhole cover and falling from his skateboard while riding on a roadway that was operated by one of the defendants. The suit alleged that the defendants negligently failed to maintain a safe roadway and should be held accountable for the damages related to the boy’s death. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that by participating in the inherently dangerous activity of skateboarding, the boy assumed the risk that he would be injured or killed by a condition on the roadway. As a result of the state supreme court’s recent decision, the plaintiffs will be unable to collect compensation for their claim.

A Tragic Accident Results in a Boy’s Death

The plaintiffs in the case of Bertsch v. Mammoth Community Water District were the surviving family members of a boy who died in a skateboarding accident in September 2011. According to the facts as recited in the appellate opinion, the victim and his brother were skateboarding around the hilly Mammoth Lakes area while their family visited a condominium that was owned by a friend. While waiting to meet their father, the boys rode their skateboards around the roads “for fun,” and they repeatedly pushed up and rode down the same hill near the condominium complex. As the victim was descending the hill on one of these occasions, his skateboard wheels became lodged in a small gap between the roadway and a manhole cover, and he was ejected from the board. His head struck the pavement, causing a traumatic brain injury and resulting in the boy’s death.

Judgment Is Affirmed for Defendants in Plaintiffs’ Wrongful Death Lawsuit

After the boy’s death, a wrongful death lawsuit was filed by his family, alleging that the defendants maintained a dangerous condition on the roadway. Before a trial on the issues, the district court ruled that the plaintiff could not recover damages as a matter of law, since the victim had assumed the risk of serious injury or death by skateboarding for leisure on the roadway.

State Supreme Court Throws Out Jury Verdict in Premises Liability Case

Published on: June 27, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Appellate Court of West Virginia recently decided to reverse a judgment of over $55,000 that had been awarded to a plaintiff after a jury trial in a negligence case filed against a public parks commission by an injured plaintiff. The original verdict and award, based on the jury’s finding that the park operators had negligently failed to keep the grounds of the park safe for visitors, was reversed after the high court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the causation element of his premises liability claim. As a result of the recent ruling, the defendant has been relieved of any responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries as a matter of law, and the plaintiff will be unable to recover compensation for his claim.

Plaintiff Falls Down a Hill after Leaning on an Unsafe Fence

The plaintiff in the case of Wheeling Park Commission v. Dattoli was a man who was injured while visiting a park operated by the defendant in September 2007. According to the facts noted in the recent opinion, the plaintiff was with his wife standing atop a hill when he leaned against a fence post to rest and put his hand on the top rail. The plaintiff testified that he briefly inspected the fence rail before leaning on it, and it appeared to be in good repair. Despite its appearance, the wooden rail had partially decayed and was not strong enough to support the man’s weight, causing it to break from the fence post and sending the man over the lower railing and down the hill, causing him to seriously injure his shoulder.

Plaintiff Files a Personal Injury Lawsuit and is Awarded Damages in a Jury Trial

The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that their negligence in failing to properly keep up the fence or warn visitors that they shouldn’t lean on it was the cause of his injuries. At trial, the plaintiff called the park’s director of operations as a witness. The witness testified that the wooden fence was at least 17 years old at the time of the accident and could produce no evidence that the fence had been repaired or maintained since it was installed. Based on the evidence produced at the trial, a jury awarded the plaintiff over $55,000 for his medical expenses and lost wages as a result of the injuries he suffered.

Court Reverses Judgment for Defendants in Wrongful Death Medical Malpractice Case

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

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma recently ruled to reverse a lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants in a medical malpractice case that was filed by the surviving family members of a woman who died while hospitalized in 2006. The state supreme court ruled that the lower court’s findings regarding the admissibility of the plaintiffs’ proposed expert testimony were made in error, and the case should have proceeded to trial with the plaintiffs’ proposed expert witness. As a result of the latest ruling, the case will be remanded to the district court to proceed toward a settlement or trial.

Plaintiffs’ Mother and Wife Died after Being Admitted to Hospital with Intestinal Hernia

The plaintiffs in the case of Nelson v. Enid Medical Associates were the husband and son of a woman who died in July 2006, two days after arriving at the emergency room with severe abdominal pain. According to the facts discussed in the appellate ruling, the woman was treated upon her arrival at the emergency department by one of the defendants, who diagnosed her with an incarcerated hernia and possible bowel obstruction. The emergency room physician contacted a second defendant, the woman’s primary physician, who advised they consult with a surgeon to treat the hernia.

The surgeon, also a defendant in the case, arrived and manually reduced the woman’s hernia. Shortly thereafter, the woman’s vital signs became unstable, and she required surgery to address her bowel obstruction. After the surgery, the woman’s primary physician adjusted her medications, which allegedly caused her blood pressure and pulse to drop and resulted in her eventual death.

State Court Affirms Award to Student Hit by Car While Boarding School Bus

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

The Delaware Supreme Court recently released a decision in which they affirmed a lower court’s ruling that allowed a plaintiff to make a claim against the personal injury protection (PIP) insurance coverage of a school bus for injuries she sustained when another vehicle hit her after she had been signaled by the bus driver to cross the street and board the bus. The decision noted that school buses play a unique role in American society and operate under a specific set of rules and regulations regarding how passengers and other vehicles must act while the bus is in operation. As a result of the recent ruling, the plaintiff will be compensated for her injuries from the PIP benefits that covered the school bus at the time of the accident.

The Plaintiff Is Injured by another Vehicle While Crossing the Street to Board the School Bus

The plaintiff in the case of State Farm v. Buckley was a student who intended to take the bus that was insured by the defendant to school on a day in March 2012. After the bus driver initiated the red flashing lights and stop sign to signal other vehicles to stop, the driver signaled the plaintiff to cross the street and board the bus. While she was crossing the street at the direction of the bus driver, another vehicle failed to stop and struck the plaintiff, causing injuries.

The Plaintiff’s PIP Claim with the Insurance Covering the School Bus Is Initially Denied

After sustaining her injuries, the plaintiff made an insurance claim with the defendant, who insured the school bus. Under Delaware law, PIP benefits are applicable to any occupant of a motor vehicle involved in an accident, as well as any other person injured in an accident involving the insured vehicle, other than an occupant of another vehicle. In response to the initial claim, the defendant refused to extend the PIP benefits to the plaintiff, stating that the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by an accident that involved the covered vehicle.

State Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Favor of Drinking Establishment in Negligence Lawsuit

Published on: June 16, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Nebraska recently released a decision in which they upheld a lower court’s ruling that granted summary judgment to a drinking establishment in a negligence lawsuit that had been filed by a man who was injured after a disgruntled patron returned to the bar after being forcibly ejected and struck the plaintiff with his vehicle, causing serious injuries. The plaintiff had alleged that the bar owners failed to uphold their duty to protect him from the conduct of the disgruntled patron, although the lower court disagreed. As a result of the appellate ruling, the plaintiff will be unable to recover damages from the drinking establishment, although he may still hold the disgruntled patron accountable for damages that resulted from the assault.

The Plaintiff Was in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time and Suffered Serious Injuries as a Result

The plaintiff in the case of Pittman v. Rivera was a patron at a drinking establishment owned by the defendant, and he was struck by a car in the parking lot as he left the bar. Although the plaintiff had not been involved in any initial confrontation, the vehicle was being driven by a man who had been forcibly ejected from the bar for fighting earlier in the evening. According to the the facts recited in the appellate opinion, the driver of the vehicle was involved in an altercation with another patron and was thrown out of the bar by security and driven home by a designated driver, only to return shortly thereafter in his own vehicle. The driver was again escorted off the premises by security, after which he entered his vehicle and began driving recklessly, eventually driving toward a crowd of people that included the plaintiff. The plaintiff was warned verbally by security to get out of the way, but he was unable to avoid being hit by the speeding car.