South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Southern District of Florida Finds Man Committed Negligent Entrustment n Personal Watercraft Accident Case

Published on: July 2, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Gozleveli v. Kohnke, a Florida couple bought two jet skis in 2012. Following the couple’s purchase, their 26-year-old son allowed a male friend and a 42-year-old woman with no personal watercraft experience to operate one of the jet skis. The couple’s son apparently informed the friend that the woman did not have permission to operate the machine. In addition, the son provided his friend with a tutorial regarding how to operate the jet skis. Although the woman was in the vicinity at the time of the tutorial, it was unclear whether she was paying attention.

Next, the couple’s son boarded one jet ski and his friend boarded the other with the woman riding as a passenger. The two men operated the personal watercrafts using the Intracoastal Waterway in Fort Lauderdale, Florida until they reached the Atlantic Ocean. After about three hours, the men began returning to the couple’s home. Near the entrance to the Intracoastal Waterway, the son’s friend allowed the woman to operate one of the personal watercrafts. Although the son was initially unaware his friend permitted the woman to operate the jet ski, he did not demand that the friend resume control once this was discovered. Eventually, the son told the woman to follow him home via the waterway.

Florida Court Finds Injured Woman’s Request to Amend Her Premises Liability Complaint Must be Reconsidered

Published on: June 25, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Grover v. Karl, a woman was apparently hurt when she fell after a fight broke out at a Florida bar. Following her injury, the woman sued the alleged property owner for negligence. Although the woman initially accused another patron of intentionally attacking her, she later stated her fall occurred when the bar manager was shoved into her during a fight between two other individuals. In response to the woman’s premises liability action, the bar owner filed a motion for summary judgment. Such a motion may be granted when there are no material facts in dispute, and one party to a lawsuit is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

According to the property owner, he had no notice of the allegedly dangerous condition that injured the woman. The bar owner also argued that the woman’s deposition testimony was inconsistent with her negligence complaint. Prior to a hearing on the summary judgment motion, the woman filed a motion for leave to amend her premises liability complaint. In her proposed complaint, the woman accused the bar manager of intentionally committing battery against her. She also submitted an affidavit in support of her motion, explaining the contradictory testimony.

Southern District of Florida Refuses to Dismiss Negligence Case Filed Against Cruise Ship After Child Was Apparently Injured Onboard

Published on: June 22, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Gittel v. Carnival Corp., the parents of a child who allegedly suffered an injury while traveling aboard a cruise ship filed a negligence action against the company that operated the vessel in the Southern District of Florida. In their complaint, the plaintiffs asserted that the child was hurt when she collided with a pointed edge that protruded into a ship passageway. In response to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the cruise ship company filed a motion to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). In order to survive such a motion, a complaint is required to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

The federal court first examined the plaintiffs’ claim that the cruise ship operator committed negligence. The court stated it was required to rely on general negligence principles when examining a maritime tort case such as the one before it. In order to demonstrate negligence, a plaintiff must allege the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, the defendant breached that duty, and the plaintiff suffered harm as a direct result of that breach. After examining the language included in the plaintiffs’ complaint, the Southern District of Florida refused to dismiss the case with regard to the general negligence allegations.

Middle District of Florida Refuses to Dismiss Mesothelioma Lawsuit

Published on: June 18, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Dugas v. 3M Company, a man filed a lawsuit in Florida against several companies over his alleged exposure to asbestos fibers while serving in the United States Navy. In his complaint, the man claimed he developed fatal mesothelioma as a result of this exposure to the dangerous product. In addition, the man alleged that each of the defendant companies or their predecessors processed, manufactured, mined, distributed, or otherwise supplied asbestos fibers to the Navy. In response to the negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and loss of consortium lawsuit, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

First, the Middle District of Florida examined the defendants’ claims that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the man failed to comply with the requirements enumerated in Section 774.205 of the Florida Statutes. According to the court, Florida substantive law and federal procedural law applied to the case because it was removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442. After examining the complaint, the court said Section 774.205 conflicted with the notice requirements included in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result, the federal court stated Florida’s heightened notice standard for asbestos cases was required to yield to the federal pleading requirements.

Disability Benefits Denied Over Misrepresentations Made by Employee in Florida Workers’ Compensation Case

Published on: June 15, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Leggett v. Barnett Marine, Inc., a marine dock construction worker apparently hurt his back while moving a heavy object at a Florida workplace in May 2013. Following his injury, the man’s employer accepted compensability and provided him with authorization to pursue medical care. In addition, the employer began paying the injured man temporary total disability payments.

While undergoing physical therapy for his back harm, the man apparently hurt his hip. Due to this injury, the employee’s physician referred him to an orthopedic surgeon for evaluation. After stating the employee’s hip harm was not work-related, the man’s employer refused compensability for the worker’s subsequent hip injury.

Florida Appeals Court Overturns Discovery Order Due to Constitutional Privacy Concerns

Published on: June 11, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Muller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a military veteran was apparently injured when he was hit by a truck at a Florida department store distribution center. At the time of the accident, the truck was being driven by a store employee. Following the accident, the man filed a negligence lawsuit against the store and the driver in a Florida court. In his complaint, the man sought damages for his permanent physical harm, suffering and pain, disability, aggravation of a preexisting condition, lost wages, and more.

During discovery, the department store learned that the man was a veteran of the United States Army who was honorably discharged in 1993. In addition, the man admitted that he was injured three times while serving his country. Despite this, the man claimed that he was not seeking compensation for aggravation of his military injuries. After that, the store sought the man’s entire military medical records, personnel file, and other documents.

Florida Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Negligence Case Filed Against Deceased Worker’s Employer

Published on: June 8, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Moradiellos v. Community Asphalt Corp., Inc., a man was tragically killed when he was struck by a truck while working as an asphalt surveyor on the Florida Turnpike. At the time of the accident, the man was employed by an asphalt company that acted as the general contractor for an ongoing road widening project. Following the man’s untimely death, his wife filed a negligence lawsuit against the general contractor and other entities.

In response to the woman’s complaint, the general contractor filed a motion for summary judgment. Such a motion is appropriate when there are no material facts in dispute and one party to a lawsuit is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. According to the asphalt company, it was the deceased man’s employer and consequently enjoyed workers’ compensation immunity. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the general contractor’s motion, and the man’s wife appealed the decision to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal.

Florida Court Overturns Judgment in Car Accident Case Due to Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel

Published on: June 4, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Government Employees Insurance Company v. Kisha, a couple purchased a motor vehicle insurance policy that included uninsured motorist coverage (“UIM”). Both members of the couple were named insureds on the automobile policy. After the couple was involved in a traffic wreck, each claimed UIM benefits under the policy. The insurer denied both of their claims due to non-payment of policy premiums. According to the insurance company, the couple’s policy was not in effect when the collision occurred.

Next, the wife filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment in a Florida court. The woman argued the auto insurer waived its right to cancel the couple’s policy and was estopped from denying coverage as a result. Although he offered testimony in his wife’s case, the husband did not join the lawsuit. Following trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the wife. The husband then filed his own declaratory judgment action. Additionally, he asked the court to enter a Motion for Entry of Judgment based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. As a result, the trial court issued a judgment in the man’s favor.

Court Overturns Summary Judgment in Florida Premises Liability Case

Published on: June 1, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Cook v. Bay Area Renaissance Festival of Largo, Inc., a visitor to a festival apparently parked in an overflow lot after being directed to do so by an event volunteer. While leaving the festival, the woman reportedly tripped on an exposed pipe while walking on a patch of unpaved sidewalk that connected the overflow lot to the festival. At the time, the walkway was owned by the city. As a result of her fall, the woman injured her foot. After her fall, the woman reported the incident to a festival employee, who immediately removed the pipe without seeking prior authorization from the landowner.

Later, the injured woman filed a negligent maintenance lawsuit against the festival operator in a Florida court. During discovery, the woman admitted the pipe was readily visible to pedestrians and that her fellow festival attendees warned her about the pipe immediately prior to her fall. In addition, the woman and her spouse offered conflicting testimony regarding whether they were told by festival workers to use the unpaved walkway.

Florida Court of Appeals Overturns Denial of Workers’ Compensation Benefits Related to Employee’s PTSD

Published on: May 29, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In CVS Caremark Corp. v. McIntosh, a Florida pharmacy worker sought workers’ compensation benefits for her purported post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) following a work-related incident. Although the worker’s employer initially authorized the employee to seek psychiatric treatment, it later challenged the worker’s request for temporary total disability and inpatient psychiatric care benefits.

At a hearing before a Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”), the woman’s psychiatrist testified that she was temporarily and totally disabled because her workplace accident caused her to suffer from PTSD. Despite this, the JCC rejected the doctor’s opinion because the woman was able to work for other specific periods of time following her job-related incident. The JCC also stated the worker’s testimony concerning her inability to work was not credible and found that she was not working for reasons that were unrelated to her compensable accident. As a result, the JCC denied the worker’s temporary disability claim.