South Florida Injury Lawyer Blawg

Articles Posted in Florida Personal Injury Caselaw

Published on: | by

Settlement is often a quick and efficient method of resolving personal injury claims. The option lets parties negotiate an agreement that works for them without spending the time and money that is typically required in a lawsuit setting. While settlements seem like the easy option, it is important to remember that settlement offers must be clear and unambiguous to be valid. In some cases, a party who rejects a settlement agreement and then subsequently loses his or her case may be responsible for some of the opposing party’s costs and fees.

In Alamo Financing v. Mazoff, the plaintiff Mazoff filed a lawsuit seeking damages from Alamo Financing and Paola Alvarado-Fernandez. Alamo Financing was the owner of the vehicle that was being rented by Alvarado-Fernandez at the time of the accident. She hit an overturned car that subsequently hit Mazoff. Mazoff had gotten out of the car to help the occupants of the overturned vehicle when he was hit, and he suffered injuries as a result.

To end the matter, Alamo extended a settlement offer to Mazoff for a monetary amount in order to resolve “all claims made in the present action by the party to whom this proposal is made including any claims that could be made against [Alamo] which arise out of the same occurrence or event set forth in this action.” Mazoff failed to respond for over a month, at which point Alamo assumed he rejected the settlement offer. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The hearsay rule is an extremely complex part of evidence law that can affect the outcome of a case. Hearsay is defined as unverified or unofficial information received from another party rather than derived from one’s own knowledge. Given the potentially unreliable nature of these statements, there are strict rules about the admissibility of such statements in a court of law.

In Benjamin v. Tandem Healthcare, the court addressed the issue of hearsay within the context of a wrongful death claim against a nursing home facility. The facts of the case are as follows. Ms. Gagnon died while she was a resident in a Florida nursing home owned and operated by Tandem Healthcare. She died by choking on food, specifically coleslaw. Ms. Gagnon had suffered from Alzheimer’s disease, and the nursing home had documented her issues with swallowing food as a result of a run-in with polio in her childhood days. Ms. Gagnon’s daughter brought a wrongful death claim against the nursing home, alleging that the facility breached the duty of care owed to her mother by not monitoring her while she ate.

The issue at trial was whether or not Ms. Gagnon choked to death. The plaintiff presented experts who concluded that the nursing home was responsible for Ms. Gagnon’s death because, through their negligence, they allowed her to choke, which led to a cardiac arrest that ultimately killed her. The nursing home expert testified that Ms. Gagnon died of a fatal arrhythmia that could have been caused by her prescription medication. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, an injured person may seek a variety of damages from an at-fault party. The specific damages that a plaintiff can obtain will depend on the nature and severity of the injuries. Typically, damages can include medical expenses, lost income and benefits, pain and suffering, and more. While there is no specific method, an experienced attorney can help you effectively demonstrate damages and get you the maximum allowable recovery under the law.

In Maggolc Inc. v. Robertson, the Third District Court of Appeals addressed what type of evidence is needed to prove lost wages. The facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff was injured in a motor scooter accident in Miami Beach when his automobile hit uneven pavement. He later sued Maggolc, the company responsible for maintaining the pavement where the accident took place. At trial, the jury decided in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him over half a million dollars in damages, including those related to lost earnings.

On appeal, Maggolc claimed that the past lost earnings and future lost earning capacity damages award was improper due to the “skimpy” testimony regarding the matters. Specifically, Maggolc claimed that the plaintiff’s claims were “unsupported by financial records of any kind” and could be mere speculation. Indeed, there were no tax documents or bank records to support the plaintiff’s claims that he was earning $80,000 prior to his accident. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

It seems that just about any activity you undertake these days requires signing a waiver. Waivers are typically designed to protect the entity providing the service. However, in order for a waiver to be enforceable, certain conditions must be met. In Claire’s Boutique v. Locastro, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s ruling pertaining to the validity of a waiver a parent signed in relation to her daughter’s ear piercing.

The facts of the case are as follows. Alexis Locastro, a 13-year-old girl, went to Claire’s to get her ears pierced in Florida. Before the piercing took place, Alexis’ mother Amy Locastro was required to sign a waiver form that released Claire’s from liability for any injuries her daughter sustained due to the negligence of Claire’s or its employees in performing the piercings. The waiver also stated that the clients would indemnify Claire’s and its employees for any claims she or her daughter might file against them. Put simply, the agreement stated that if Alexis or her mother sued Claire’s and won a damages award, they would be responsible for reimbursing Claire’s for any amount Claire’s was ordered to pay to Alexis or her mother, including attorney’s fees and costs.

Following the piercing, Alexis developed an infection in her ear that ultimately required extensive hospitalization and resulted in permanent ear disfiguration. Amy Locastro filed a lawsuit against Claire’s under the theory of negligence. According to the evidence at trial, all of Claire’s employees were required to undergo training on how to pierce ears. However, there was no specific evidence that the employee who pierced Alexis’ ears was ever formally trained. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Are you responsible if someone uninvited and without warning enters your land, and slips and injures himself or herself on your property? Can the trespasser sue you for his or her injuries? What if you are a store owner, and a customer enters an “employee only” area and injures himself or herself there? The answer can vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

Under Florida law, business owners have no obligation to warn trespassers of anything other than known, concealed dangers. Given that the standard is so high, it is very difficult for trespassers to recover damages.

Premises liability cases generally hinge on what someone’s status is on another’s property. If you are somewhere where you are not allowed to be, you are a trespasser. This applies to “employee only” zones in places where you have permission to be. In other words, even if you have permission to be in a particular store, that doesn’t mean you have permission to be in every room or area in that store. Thus, your status can change from an invited customer to a trespasser merely by walking from one area (the checkout register) to another that is designated only for employees (the stockroom). Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The beautiful Florida weather lends itself to many outdoor activities including many water sports like boating, jet skiing, and tubing. Due to the lakes, rivers and coastline in Florida, people can be seen outside enjoying the open air. Unfortunately, these outdoor activities also mean that boating accidents are quite common. In 2008, Florida ranked #1 among all states for boating accidents according to the Florida Fish Wildlife Conservation Committee. If you or someone you know has been injured or killed in a boating accident, the Law Offices of Robert Dixon can help.

Boating accidents can be just as traumatizing as any other accident. Often, victims are left to deal with devastating, lifelong injuries. In the worst accidents, victims lose their lives. The applicable statute of limitations for boating accidents can be complicated, which is why it is best to consult an experienced attorney who is knowledgeable about the specific laws that apply to these types of accidents.

Boating accidents can occur for a number of reasons, some of which include:

  • Driver inattention
  • Ineffective or poor steering
  • Driver inexperience
  • Excessive speeding
  • Operating the boat under the influence of drugs or alcohol
  • Slip and fall accidents

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

When a plaintiff is injured due to the fault of someone else, that plaintiff can typically recover damages for his or her injuries from the responsible party under the theory of negligence. Negligence is the failure to take proper care in doing something. Put another way, negligence occurs when the defendant breaches the duty of care owed to the plaintiff and that breach causes direct harm to the plaintiff. The burden is on the plaintiff to show that his or her injuries resulted from the defendant’s conduct. In Poland v. Zaccheo, a Florida District Court of Appeals addressed the issue of giving all parties a sufficient opportunity to cross-examine expert witnesses.

The facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff was injured in a rear-end collision. The plaintiff sustained a serious injury and eventually had to have surgery on her lower back. The plaintiff then filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant called a medical expert who testified that the majority of the plaintiff’s injuries were “attributable to preexistent disc bulges and degeneration associated with her morbid obesity.” The expert’s ultimate opinion was that the accident did not cause any permanent injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s counsel was not allowed to question the defense’s expert regarding the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

Florida is a comparative negligence state, which means that the amount of compensation a plaintiff is entitled to is reduced by the percentage of his or her fault in the accident. Here, the jury found the defendant to be 90 percent negligent and the plaintiff 10 percent negligent. The plaintiff was awarded medical expenses and lost earnings but not any pain and suffering or future damages of any sort. The jury concluded, based on the expert’s testimony, that the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent injury due to the accident. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, auto insurance companies must act in “good faith” when handling claims from people they insure. The term “good faith” is used in many areas of law to refer to honesty and a sincere intention to deal fairly with others. In the context of an insurance company, good faith would refer to the insurance company assessing the damage fairly and offering an adequate payout. An example of bad faith would be an insurance company defrauding the insured party. If an insurance company fails to act in good faith, the insured party can typically file a lawsuit alleging bad faith.

In Rodriguez v. Integon, Mr. Rodriguez was injured in a car accident when he got into a wreck with another vehicle. The other vehicle was owned by another couple who was insured by Integon. Mr. Rodriguez later received a letter from Integon offering a settlement in the amount of $100,000 to “Anthony Rodriguez,” which was not the correct name. The correct name was Alexander Rodríguez. In exchange for the money, the company asked Rodriguez to sign a release form that would release the couple and Integon from all claims arising from the accident. Mr. Rodriguez declined and later sued the couple and won more than $100,000. Mr. Rodriguez then sued Integon for bad faith.

The District Court dismissed the lawsuit, stating that Mr. Rodriguez had failed to allege with specificity a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court explained that a “bad faith” claim arises when the insurer has breached its duty of good faith, specifically the contractual duty to exercise ordinary care when dealing with claims so the insured is not exposed to excess judgments. In this case, Mr. Rodriguez stated that Integon breached the duty of good faith by offering a settlement to someone else, namely “Anthony Rodriguez,” and failed to settle the case in a timely manner. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In most instances, there is no dispute as to whether a “vehicle” was involved when it comes to motor vehicle accidents. However, in Angelotta v. Security National Insurance, Florida’s District Court of Appeals tackled the question of whether a modified golf cart constitutes a “vehicle” when it comes to insurance policies.

In early 2008, Mr. Snyder was driving a golf cart on a public roadway when he sideswiped a car and subsequently collided with Mr. Angelotta’s stopped golf cart. Mr. Snyder had been leasing the golf cart, which had been modified so that it could travel in excess of 20 miles an hour.

Mr. Angelotta sued Mr. Snyder under the theory of negligence for the injuries he sustained in the accident. At the time of the crash, Mr. Snyder had automobile insurance through National Insurance. National Insurance, however, refused to defend or indemnify Mr. Snyder in the litigation, stating that the golf cart was not a “vehicle” covered under the insurance policy. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

We’ve all heard stories of police using excessive force on suspected criminals. Unfortunately, these cases are not as rare as you might think. Since a variety of measures police officers take are discretionary, police officers routinely overestimate threats and use too much force as a result. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that of all individuals who had force used or threatened against them by police in 2008, an estimated 74% felt those actions were excessive. Males were more likely than females to have force used or threatened against them, and blacks were more likely than whites or Hispanics to experience use or the threat of force. However, not all claims against a city police officer can be pursued. Many are barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

In Bussey-Morice v. Kennedy, the plaintiff died during an encounter with the police in the city of Rockledge. The police officers on the scene used their tasers on the plaintiff between three and six times during the encounter. Later, the cause of death was deemed to be “cocaine excited delirium,” but the medical examiner also noted the decedent had conditions such as pulmonary emphysema and lung adhesions.

The plaintiff’s personal representative filed a lawsuit against the city and each police officer involved in the incident, alleging claims for excessive force, battery, and wrongful death due to negligent training. The district court partially granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, noting that the theory of sovereign immunity applied. Continue Reading ›

Contact Information
Miami
201 S Biscayne Blvd 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Fort Lauderdale
110 E Broward Blvd
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
By Appointment Only
West Palm Beach
1210 N Olive Ave
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Orlando
618 E South St #500
Orlando, FL 32801
By Appointment Only
Toll Free: 877.499.HURT(4878)

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Law Offices of Robert Dixon
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design