South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Summary Judgment Upheld in South Florida Premises Liability Case

Published on: July 16, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In an unpublished opinion, the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an order granting summary judgment to a department store in a premises liability case. According to his complaint, a man supposedly injured his right eye when he walked into a clothing rack that was protruding into an aisle at a South Florida department store in late 2011. The man apparently struck the rack with enough force to fall backwards and hit his head. After his fall, store workers reportedly escorted the man to a customer service area, where a guest incident form was completed. In addition, one of the employees took photos of the clothing rack at issue.

After seeking medical treatment, the man filed a negligence action against the department store in a Florida state court. The case was then removed to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. In his complaint, the man accused the department store of breaching its duty of reasonable care by failing to warn him of the hazard created by the placement of the clothing rack. The man also asserted that the store knew or should have known about the dangerous condition prior to his accident. The man asked the court to award him damages for his resulting vision loss, light sensitivity, headaches, and seizures.

South Florida Court Dismisses Jones Act Case for Lack of Jurisdiction

Published on: July 14, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Tarasewicz v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., a welder and pipefitter who was a Polish national suffered an ischemic stroke while working aboard a cruise ship off the coast of Florida. Although the man was apparently misdiagnosed initially, he was later removed from the ship and treated at a Fort Lauderdale hospital.

Less than two years later, the man and his wife filed a lawsuit against the owner of the vessel, the ship’s captain, and others in the Southern District of Florida. According to the couple’s complaint, the Polish man suffered the stroke as a direct result of the unsafe working conditions aboard the cruise ship. Because of this, the man asked the court to award him damages for negligence, breach of implied warranty, negligence under the Jones Act, failure to provide maintenance and cure, and other claims. In response, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the man’s lawsuit because it was filed in an improper forum. According to the defendants, the United States court lacked admiralty jurisdiction.

Appeals Court Holds Apportionment Must be Based on Reliable Methods in Florida Workers’ Compensation Case

Published on: July 9, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Giaimo v. Florida Autosport, Inc., an automobile mechanic was apparently injured when he was struck from behind while test driving a customer’s vehicle in Florida. Due to the man’s resulting neck and back harm, the worker underwent surgery that was performed by an authorized neurosurgeon. Prior to his workplace accident, however, the man was deemed to be eight percent permanently impaired due to a prior car accident in which he also hurt his neck and back.

At a workers’ compensation benefits hearing, both the mechanic and his employer agreed that he was permanently and totally disabled. Despite this, the man’s employer argued that the man’s benefits should be apportioned because the workplace accident aggravated the mechanic’s preexisting injuries. During the hearing, the man’s surgeon, an authorized pain manager, and one of the worker’s initial treating surgeons offered medical testimony.

Florida Appeals Court Addresses Psychiatric Disability in Workers’ Compensation Case

Published on: July 7, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In School Board of Lee County v. Huben, an employee suffered an arm injury at work. Following her workplace harm, the Florida woman sought workers’ compensation benefits. A Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) awarded the worker temporary partial disability, temporary total disability, and other benefits. In addition, the JCC apparently adjusted the employee’s average weekly wage upwards. After the JCC issued the award, the woman’s employer filed an appeal with the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

On appeal, the worker’s employer argued the JCC should not have considered the independent medical examiner evidence offered by the worker. In addition, the employer claimed the JCC should have denied the worker’s temporary partial disability benefits request because she voluntarily limited her income. The employer also asserted that the employee’s psychiatric injury did not merit a temporary total disability award and that the JCC should not have awarded the worker legal fees based on the average weekly wage adjustment.

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.