South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog
A Florida appellate court recently reversed a lower court’s ruling that when the amount of the judgment in a tort case is modified on appeal, post-trial interest must accrue from the date of the verdict rather than from the date of the original judgment. The court reasoned that the earlier accrual date in such circumstances unjustly punishes the losing party.In the fall of 2011, a jury rendered a verdict of roughly $7.5 million in a wrongful death lawsuit, finding appellate Shoemaker 40 percent at fault for decedent Stephen Sliger’s death. Following the verdict, Shoemaker and his co-defendants filed a motion to cap non-economic damages according to section 766.118(2) of Florida Statutes. They argued that under 766.118, the non-economic damages should be capped at $500,000. Sonia Sliger, the representative of Stephen Sliger’s estate, responded that section 766.118’s damages limitation violated the Florida and U.S. constitutions.
Florida Appeals Court Reverses Verdict for Woman Injured By Dead Horse in Road
The Florida Court of Appeals for the Fifth District reversed a trial court’s ruling for a woman injured by a horse corpse in the road, holding that the defendant Sheriff did not owe the injured woman a duty of care.Kathleen Shinkle was driving on a dark road just before sunrise in a rural part of Flagler County when she struck a dead horse lying on the roadway. The collision caused her car to flip over, resulting in serious injuries to Shinkle. She filed suit against the Flagler County Sheriff. The jury returned a verdict for Shinkle. Moreover, the trial court granted her motion for additur (additional damages) and rendered judgment in her favor.
Exception to Statute of Limitations in Florida Sexual Abuse Cases Only Applies to Intentional Torts
The Third District of Florida Court of Appeal recently affirmed a trial court’s ruling for Temple Beth Sholom in a sexual assault lawsuit. Plaintiff Joyce Firestone sought review after the trial court held that her claims against the Temple were filed after the statute of limitations had lapsed.In the early 1970s when she was a minor student at Temple Beth Sholom (the Temple), Firestone was sexually assaulted by Barak Yaron, a teacher employed by the Temple. Firestone sued the Temple approximately 40 years later in 2013. Her claim was based on two primary theories: (1) the Temple was vicariously liable for Yaron’s actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior; and (2) the Temple violated its fiduciary duty to Firestone.
Florida Court Upholds Dismissal for Inconvenient Forum in Cruise Accident Case
The Florida Court of Appeal for the Third District recently upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit related to a cruise accident, reasoning that Italy would be a more appropriate forum.The appeals court consolidated two cases – Abeid-Saba and Scimone II – brought by passengers aboard an Italian cruise ship, the Concordia. Both suits alleged that in January 2012, the Concordia’s captain deviated from the cruise’s planned course to perform a trick called a “bow.” During this maneuver, the Concordia struck an underwater reef, causing damage to the hull and requiring the evacuation of 3,206 passengers.
Florida Appellate Court Holds Damage Caps Unconstitutional in Medical Malpractice Suit
The Florida Court of Appeals for the Fourth District held that a Palm Beach County trial court erred in applying statutory caps to the noneconomic damages award in a medical malpractice case.Appellant Dr. Jeanne Go and a colleague were sued for medical malpractice resulting from their treatment of Dens Pierre, which caused permanent brain injury to the child. A jury found Dr. Go 75% liable and awarded Pierre and his mother roughly $28.5 million in damages. However, the reward was reduced pursuant to section 766.118(2) of the Florida Statutes. Dr. Go appealed, and Pierre and his mother cross-appealed. The appellate court rejected Dr. Go’s arguments on appeal and reversed with respect to the trial court’s reduction of damages.
South Florida Federal Court Rules Cruise Operator Had No Duty To Warn Passenger About Open and Obvious Hazards
In Lugo v. Carnival Corp., a family of four departed on a cruise vacation in February 2015. While on board the ship, the two children slept on elevated bunk beds. In order to access the bunk beds, the children were required to utilize a removable ladder that did not fully reach the cabin floor. On the last night of the cruise, however, the father slept on one of the top bunks. In the morning, the father apparently fell head first off the ladder while attempting to climb down from the upper bunk in the dark.
According to the man, he lost consciousness as a result of his fall. The father apparently remained in the family’s cabin for some time before seeking treatment from the ship’s medical team. A ship physician ultimately diagnosed the man with a broken rib.
Miami Court Examines Factors to Consider When Reviewing a Motion to Transfer Venue Following Unfortunate Car Accident
In Morrissey v. Subaru of America, Inc., a couple was injured when the vehicle one spouse was driving unexpectedly accelerated and collided with a stone fence in the United States Virgin Islands. Sadly, the wife was left permanently paralyzed as a result of the crash. Following the incident, the couple filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against the Japanese automobile manufacturer, the company’s U.S. distributor, and the dealership that sold the vehicle to its original owners.
In the couple’s complaint, they accused the defendants of negligence per se, failure to warn, negligently designing and manufacturing the vehicle, strict liability, and breach of warranty. The husband also sought damages for his loss of consortium.
Workers’ Compensation Benefits Denied Because Florida Man’s Need for Treatment was Caused by a Preexisting Condition
In Ceristaff, Inc. v. Owen, a worker who was employed as a gas appliance technician apparently hurt his shoulder when he fell at work in December 2013. Following the man’s workplace accident injury, the worker’s employer accepted compensability for the incident. As a result, the employee was authorized to seek medical treatment. After the worker was examined by a physician, however, the employer denied further workers’ compensation benefits due to the employee’s purported preexisting condition. According to the man’s treating doctor, the worker suffered from both osteoarthritis and rotator cuff arthropathy prior to his workplace accident.
After the man’s employer denied his request for additional medical care, the worker underwent an examination by his own designated medical expert. The expert recommended that the worker undergo additional shoulder surgery. According to the physician, the major contributing cause (“MCC”) for the employee’s need for a surgical procedure was his fall accident at work.
Orlando Federal Court Remands Child’s Premises Liability Claim Back to Florida State Court
In A.Z. v. Bonnet Creek Resort Vacation Condominium Assoc., Inc., a minor was apparently injured when she tripped and fell while visiting a Florida condominium complex. The Georgia resident later filed a lawsuit against the property owner in Orange County, Florida Circuit Court. In response to the purportedly injured child’s complaint, the condo association removed the lawsuit to federal court.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a civil case may be removed to federal court when no federal questions exist if the parties to a lawsuit are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. At the time of removal, the condominium association also requested discovery concerning the minor plaintiff’s Georgia citizenship. Following removal to federal court, the Middle District of Florida in Orlando ordered the parties to address whether remand back to a Florida state court was appropriate sua sponte, or of the court’s own accord. Generally, a court may take such an action without a request from either party if a case should be transferred to another court due to a conflict of interest, or the court believes it likely does not have jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute.
Florida Appeals Court Orders New Trial Following Multi-Million Dollar Judgment Against Tobacco Companies
In RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Calloway, several tobacco companies filed an appeal following a multi-million dollar judgment that was entered against them in Florida. In the case, the defendants faced claims of negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy to commit fraud, brought by the estate of a man who died from health complications that were apparently caused by his cigarette addiction. Following trial, the jury ultimately determined the deceased man, who began smoking at age 15, was 20.5 percent responsible for his own death.
On appeal to Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, the defendants claimed a new trial was warranted because the plaintiff’s attorney made repeated inflammatory statements in front of jurors. Additionally, the tobacco companies argued the trial court committed error when it instructed the jury regarding the estate’s fraud claims and entered a joint and several final judgment that potentially held each company accountable for the entirety of the jury award. The defendants also asserted that the jury’s compensatory and punitive damages awards should have been reduced or set aside by the lower court, and their right to due process was violated. In response to the tobacco companies’ appeal, the plaintiff claimed the trial court committed error when it sustained several of the defendants’ objections regarding statements made by the estate’s lawyer.