South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

State Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Plaintiff in Dram Shop DUI Wrongful Death Case

Published on: May 9, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Massachusetts recently released an opinion affirming a district court’s ruling that a plaintiffs’ lawsuit against a restaurant regarding the DUI-related death of their family member could proceed. The defendant had argued that the plaintiffs submitted an insufficient affidavit to make a claim against a provider of alcoholic beverages, but both courts disagreed with the defendant’s arguments, and the case will continue to be heard.

Plaintiffs’ Family Member Dies after Allegedly Being Served an Excessive Amount of Alcohol by the Defendant

According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, their family member died in a single-car DUI accident after he had spent hours at a restaurant and bar operated by the defendant. The plaintiffs claim that an employee of the defendant repeatedly served the driver alcoholic beverages, knowing that he was extremely intoxicated and that he would be driving home. The claim, made under a state law known as the Dram Shop Act, is allowed against third parties who knowingly serve alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron who later causes an injury or death while driving drunk. Several states have various forms of dram shop laws, which have been enacted to discourage dangerous serving practices at restaurants and bars across the country.

The Defendant’s Request to Dismiss the Case Is Rejected

Once the plaintiffs’ case was filed, the defendants asked the court to dismiss it, arguing that an affidavit attached to a Dram Shop Act claim must be based on personal knowledge rather than simply information and belief. Both the district court and the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that an affidavit based on knowledge and belief is sufficient to prevent the claim from being dismissed, and any irregularities or discrepancies in the facts can be decided by a judge or jury at a later point in the case. Based on the rulings, the plaintiffs’ claim will be allowed to proceed toward a trial or settlement.

State Supreme Court Dismisses Claim Against City for Failure to Meet Filing Deadline

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

The Maine Supreme Court recently released a decision that emphasizes the importance of following procedural requirements in filing a personal injury lawsuit, especially in cases in which the defendant is a governmental entity. The case of Deschenes v. City of Sanford was filed by the plaintiff after he fell down an allegedly dangerous staircase at the Sanford city hall and was injured from the fall.The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the city, although he did not give them a formal notice of claim until over 180 days after the injury occurred. Although the plaintiff had given the city oral notice of his injury, the city asked the court to rule in their favor and deny the plaintiff’s claim, based on the state requirement that plaintiffs must file a lawsuit against a government entity in Maine within 180 days of the alleged negligence.

Both Courts Agree that Oral Notice Is Not Sufficient to Comply with the Procedural Requirements

The plaintiff’s argument at the district court and on appeal was that he gave the city oral notice of his injury after it occurred, and he requested compensation for his injuries in person within 180 days of the accident. Both the district court and the Maine Supreme Court found that an official notice of claim needed to be provided in writing by the man or his attorney to comply with the state sovereign immunity act, and that the plaintiff’s oral request for compensation was not sufficient under the act. Based on the court’s decision to uphold the lower court’s decision, the plaintiff will not be compensated for his medical bills and injuries based on the alleged negligence of the city.

Court Upholds $575,000 Damages Award to Woman Ejected From Public Bus After Collision With Fire Truck

Published on: May 2, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Nebraska recently released a decision that affirmed a lower district court judgment awarding over $575,000 to a personal injury plaintiff in her lawsuit against a Nebraska city. The woman received the award as compensation for injuries she sustained when the bus she was riding on was hit by a vehicle operated by the city’s fire department. The defendant had appealed the ruling to the state supreme court because they were not permitted to subpoena records from a physician who treated the plaintiff’s injuries, but the high court agreed with the district court that the requested records were not relevant to the case. As a result of the Nebraska Supreme Court’s ruling, the plaintiff will be able to collect compensation for her injuries caused by the negligence of the city employee.The plaintiff in the case of Moreno v. City of Gering was injured in a car accident in January 2011, when the county bus she was riding in was hit by a fire department vehicle. After the impact, the woman was ejected from the bus and landed on the pavement, and she was subsequently taken to a local hospital by ambulance with serious injuries. In the course of her treatment, the patient’s doctor determined that an existing back injury was aggravated by the crash, and she would require spinal fusion surgery to fully recover from the accident. A surgery was performed on the plaintiff in June 2011.

The City Admits Liability for the Crash But Challenges the Propriety of the Spinal Surgery

The plaintiff filed a claim against the City of Gering under the state’s Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act in November 2012 and sought damages to compensate her for the expenses and losses related to the accident. The city accepted responsibility for the negligence of the employee who caused the accident and waived any immunity they may have had as a municipality. However, the city challenged the plaintiff’s claimed damages, arguing that the spinal surgery was not necessary or helpful to her condition. The city’s defenses were not successful, however, and the district court judge made a finding that the surgery was in fact a necessary part of her treatment, which was affirmed by the higher court on review.

The Importance of a Thorough Accident Investigation in South Florida

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

South Florida accident and personal injury cases often involve two or more conflicting stories, and it can be up to a judge or jury to decide who is telling the truth. Plaintiffs and defendants in a Miami personal injury lawsuit must offer evidence to prove their side of the story. In some instances in which one party appears more believable than another but conceals the facts, the truth of what happened can be hidden from the judge or jury, resulting in an accident victim being denied compensation even when another driver was in fact negligent and caused the alleged injuries.

The Investigation: The First Step in a Successful Personal Injury Claim

Florida accident victims may wonder what the process entails in making an injury claim in state or federal court, and an experienced attorney can shed light on how a claim for damages should proceed. One of the first steps to collecting damages in a South Florida personal injury lawsuit is for the plaintiff’s attorney to ensure that a full investigation is performed into what exactly happened to cause their client’s injuries. It’s not that lawyers don’t believe their client’s side of the story. The investigation is necessary because experienced injury attorneys know the strategies that defendants and insurance companies may use to avoid liability. Only by having a qualified investigative team perform a full investigation of an accident can a Miami injury lawyer begin to construct the best case for their client to receive a fair damages award after an accident.

Admission of Seat Belt Non-use Evidence in Auto Accident Cases on the Rise

Published on: April 25, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas recently released an opinion that overturned an Arkansas law that had made evidence of seat belt non-use inadmissible to prove a plaintiff’s comparative negligence in a personal injury claim. The statute had been designed to prevent defendants from avoiding responsibility for injuries resulting from their negligence because a plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt. Since seat belt use has become mandatory in 49 states and is widely accepted as an important safety precaution, laws in several states that have prevented non-use evidence at trial are being weakened or eliminated.

The Arkansas Case and the State Supreme Court’s Ruling

The case of Mendoza v. Washington Inventory Services was filed by a woman who was a back seat passenger and was injured in a rear-end accident while riding in a vehicle that was being driven by an employee of the defendant. Alleging that the driver of the vehicle negligently caused the accident, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver’s employer, seeking compensation for her injuries. As the case progressed, the defendant sought to introduce evidence that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to her injuries because she was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the crash. The district court rejected the defendant’s request, citing the Arkansas law that specifically prohibited the admission of such evidence for that purpose.

Judgment in Favor of County Fair Association Affirmed after Plaintiff Injured During Free Fireworks Display

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

The North Dakota Supreme Court recently released an opinion that affirmed a lower court’s granting of summary judgment to the defendant, a county fair association, in a case that was filed by a woman who was injured during a fireworks display that was put on at the county fair. The court found that the defendant was protected from liability by what is known as “recreational land use immunity,” which is contained in the North Dakota state code. Based on the appellate ruling, the plaintiff will be unable to collect compensation for the injuries that she suffered due to the alleged negligence of the county fair association.

Plaintiff Is Allegedly Injured by Improperly Maintained Grandstand Equipment

The plaintiff in the case of Woody v. Pembina County Annual Fair and Exhibition Association was a woman who attended the county fair to watch a fireworks exhibition. According to the facts expressed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff stepped on a rotten board while looking for a seat in the grandstand and fell to the ground, suffering serious injuries.

After the case was filed, the defendant moved for judgment in their favor, arguing that as a non-profit entity that was offering the fair and fireworks exhibition free of charge, they were not liable for negligence under the recreational use immunity statute. The plaintiff disagreed, claiming that the defendant was operating the event for commercial purposes, and their non-profit status was not relevant to the determination of immunity.

State Supreme Court Finds that Children Under Five Years Old Cannot Be Held Accountable for Negligence

Published on: April 18, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Utah Supreme Court recently released an opinion holding that as a matter of law, children under the age of five cannot be held accountable for their own negligence. The decision was handed down after the parents of a four-year-old boy appealed a district court decision that allowed a negligence case against their son to proceed. The plaintiff in the case of Nielsen v. Bell was made permanently blind in one eye after the defendant threw a toy at her while she was babysitting him. Based on the Utah Supreme Court’s decision, as well as the lower court’s ruling that dismissed a negligent supervision claim against the boy’s parents, the plaintiff will be unable to receive compensation for her injuries.

The District Court Found the Boy Could Be Held Accountable for Negligence

The plaintiff sued both the four-year-old boy and his parents for negligence after he threw a toy dolphin at her and struck her in the eye while she was babysitting him. Although she later agreed that her claim against the boy’s parents had no merit, the district court accepted her claim that the boy could be held accountable for negligence. On an interlocutory appeal by the boy’s parents, the Utah Supreme Court intervened in the case to settle the law on the minimum age at which a child can be held accountable for negligence.

The Utah Supreme Court elected to adopt a rule that puts a fixed age limit on the capability of children being liable for negligence. Although the defendants argued that the court should not allow claims against any child under the age of seven, the court decided to follow an alternative rule that barred claims against children younger than five. The court determined that children under the age of five have a limited capacity to appreciate how their actions can cause harm to themselves or others and have an inadequate internal ability to control impulses that may lead to injuries. Based on this finding, the court held as a matter of law that children under five can never be liable for negligence.

State Supreme Court Reverses $4.5 Million Award in Auto Accident Case

Published on: April 14, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada recently released a decision in which a trial award of nearly $4.5 million was reversed, and the court ordered a new trial. The state high court found that the lower judge’s exclusion of the defendant’s low-impact accident defense, as well as her ruling to strike the defendant’s answer and enter a default award in favor of the plaintiff, was without merit. As a result of the latest opinion, the plaintiff will be required to settle the case with the defendants or prove the claim again at a second trial.

What Appeared to Be a Minor Crash Allegedly Resulted in Serious Injuries

The plaintiff in the case of Rish v. Simao was allegedly injured in an auto accident with the defendant that occurred in stop-and-go traffic. The plaintiff was able to drive his car home after the crash and refused medical treatment at the scene. However, he later alleged that he developed back and spine injuries. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s injuries were exaggerated and could not have been caused by the accident, based on the speed of the vehicles involved and the evidence of the relatively nonviolent impact, suggested by the photos taken at the crash scene.

Before trial, the plaintiff’s attorneys successfully argued to the court that the defense should not be permitted to argue that the crash was a low-impact collision, or that it was not sufficiently violent to cause the plaintiff’s injuries. The judge additionally ordered that the photos of the crash could not be shown to the jury. This ruling was based on the defendant’s failure to retain a biomechanical engineer expert witness who could testify that the forces involved in the crash were too insignificant to cause the injuries.

Jury Finds General Motors Not Liable for Crash Alleged from Recalled Ignition Switch

Published on: April 11, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A New York jury recently reached a verdict in favor of the defendants in a product liability lawsuit that was filed by a couple who alleged that they were injured in a 2014 accident that was caused by a faulty ignition switch in their 2007 Saturn Sky. The jury found that the ignition switch, which has been recalled by the manufacturer, was defective and made the vehicle unreasonably dangerous. However, the jurors also determined that the faulty switch was not the cause of the accident or the resulting injuries to the plaintiffs. Based on the jury’s verdict, the plaintiffs will be unable to collect damages to compensate them for the injuries they sustained in the accident.

The Jury Finds that the Accident was Caused by Icy Roads, Not the Ignition Switch

According to a news report discussing the verdict, the jurors decided that the crash was more likely than not caused by icy road conditions on the New Orleans bridge where it occurred. An attorney for the defendant, General Motors, noted in the article that there were over 30 other accidents on the night it occurred, and he stated that the accident was caused by the driver losing control of the vehicle and had nothing to do with the ignition switch issue.

Although the plaintiffs were not successful in this particular case, General Motors has settled 1,385 other cases related to the issue for a total of about $275 million, according to the article. Furthermore, the judge who presided over the trial made a statement that the verdict should not be read into too deeply by other possible victims of the issue, and it may not dictate the outcome in other cases.

State Supreme Court Holds that an Employee Who is Responsible for Maintaining a Public Park is Not Immune From a Premises Liability Claim

Published on: April 7, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon recently decided a case in which they found that the maintenance supervisor of a public park was not entitled to immunity from a premises liability lawsuit alleging that his negligence resulted in injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff in the case of Johnson vs. Gibson is a blind woman who was injured when she fell into a hole that had been dug by the defendant in a public park in Oregon. The issue decided by the Oregon Supreme Court in Johnson vs. Gibson was not dispositive as to the plaintiff’s claim of negligence, but instead it focused on whether her case could proceed against the defendant, who was an employee of the City of Portland, which is itself immune from the lawsuit under Oregon law.

Sovereign Immunity and the Court’s Analysis of the Defendant’s Claim of Immunity

The defendant’s motion to dismiss the case against him was based on the fact that in Oregon (as is also the case in Florida), governmental agencies cannot be sued for the negligence of their employees in the same way that a private company can. Longstanding legal precedent has established that governments and municipal subdivisions are not liable in the courts for simple negligence, and every state in the country, as well as the federal government, have since put this sovereign immunity on the books as part of the state and federal codes. In many jurisdictions, it is possible for negligence victims to collect damages through an alternative process, and there are also other methods of recovery that can be used to help accident victims collect damages against a negligent government employee.