Florida Personal Injury Caselaw Category Archives - Page 7 of 14 - South Florida Injury Lawyer Blawg Published by Miami Accident Attorneys

Expert Testimony Under the Daubert Standard

Published on: March 3, 2016 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

When it comes to personal injury and wrongful death cases in Florida, it is not uncommon to use expert witnesses to explain complicated issues to the jury regarding the injury or the cause of the injury. There are, however, strict requirements about who can qualify as an expert witness. Under § 90.702, Fla. Stat., an expert witness must possess the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education needed to convey an opinion to the judge or jury based on sufficient facts or data, applying reliable principles and methods to the facts of the case. These requirements amount to the Daubert standard.

In Baan v. Columbia County, the First District had to decide whether the expert testimony of an emergency room doctor about the standard of care and the conduct of emergency personnel responding to a 911 call was appropriately excluded.

The facts of the case are as follows. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was called for an infant who was experiencing respiratory distress. Once EMS arrived on the scene, they showed the infant’s aunt how to use a nebulizer and left within 10 minutes of their arrival. The EMS report indicated that the child had normal vital signs. Approximately 50 minutes later, another 911 call was placed that revealed that the infant had stopped breathing altogether and that he was blue. The baby was also cold to the touch. The infant was air lifted to a nearby hospital but pronounced dead the next day.

Lack of Citation Inadmissible in Florida Jet Ski Accident Case

Published on: March 3, 2016 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

Evidentiary rules for personal injury cases can be complicated, which is why having an experienced attorney on your side can make all the difference in your case. At the Law Offices of Robert Dixon, our Miami accident attorneys are well versed in virtually all aspects of negligence law and can put this knowledge to use in your case.

In Soto v. McCulley Marine Services, Inc., a man was jet skiing over the July Fourth holiday weekend in 2009 when he was tossed from the vehicle and sucked underneath nearby moored vessels. The man became trapped under a barge and ultimately drowned to death despite wearing a flotation device at the time of the incident.

Near the site of the accident, a dock was being used for storage and a preparation area for an artificial reef project maintained by the County of Manatee.

Florida Court Clarifies ‘Amount in Controversy’ Requirement

Published on: February 16, 2016 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

Determining liability can be difficult in any car accident, but it can become even more complex when one party is from a different country. This is exactly what happened in the case of Bess v. Day, in which a Florida resident was injured in an automobile accident allegedly caused by a Canadian citizen.

After the incident, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court against the Canadian driver and his wife. The defendants promptly removed the suit to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. In order to remove to federal court on this basis, the parties have to be residents of different states, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. Here, there was no dispute regarding the fact that the parties were from different places.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the lawsuit back to state court, claiming that the defendants did not meet their burden of showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. When it comes to the amount in controversy, the law requires that the amount be more than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The defendants focused on a pre-suit settlement offer letter that outlined the plaintiff’s injuries and requested $125,000 for their harm. This amount also happened to be the defendant’s policy limit.

Florida Court Rules in Tobacco Company Case

Published on: February 3, 2016 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

Earlier this month, tobacco companies won in a Florida appeals court when the court overturned a multimillion-dollar award to a smoker’s family. The tobacco companies in the case, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip Morris USA, Inc., Lorillard Tobacco Co., and Liggett Group, faced a number of claims, including negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy to commit fraud. These claims were brought forth by Johnnie Calloway’s estate in RJ Reynold Tobacco Co. v. Calloway.

Calloway had started smoking when he was just 15 years old. In 1991, Calloway suffered a heart attack, and he died of bladder cancer approximately one year later. A physician stated that Calloway’s death was related to his habit of smoking three packs of cigarettes per day.

At the end of trial, the jury concluded that Calloway was approximately 20 percent at fault for his death, with the rest of the blame divided among the tobacco companies. Calloway’s estate was awarded a total of $9 million, and his daughter was awarded $7.1 million. Additionally, the court stuck the tobacco companies with a $54.85 million award of punitive damages. The defendants appealed.

Court Address Pain and Suffering Damages Issue in Florida Car Accident Case

Published on: January 18, 2016 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

In some accident cases, damages are relatively easy to calculate. In other cases, however, determinations of damages can be quite complicated. If you’ve been injured in a car wreck, it is important to seek the help of a qualified Miami attorney who can assess the merits of your case. At the Law Offices of Robert Dixon, our team understands the nuances of personal injury law and will work hard to seek the compensation you deserve for your harm.

In Ortega v. Belony, the plaintiff broke his neck in a car accident. After the incident, the man was in the hospital for just over a week. For three months after that, he wore a medical halo device. The man’s treating physician recommended that he have neck surgery, but the man declined.

While recovering, the man lived with his brother, who helped him with his daily needs. The man reported having trouble sleeping, and on one night, he went back to the hospital to have the screws in his halo tightened. After the three months had passed, however, the man’s injuries had significantly healed, and he only had mild neck pain and some back pain from that point onwards. The physicians did not recommend any further treatment.

Florida Court Rules in Cruise Injury Case

Published on: January 18, 2016 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

In Cordani v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., William Cordani’s estate brought a wrongful death claim against NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., a cruise company and its medical team. The lawsuit was filed after Cordani died due to sickness while on a cruise ship. Cordani’s estate brought a multiple-count complaint against the cruise company as well as the health care providers who tended to Cordani. As a reply to these claims, NCL filed a motion to dismiss the estate’s general negligence claims, negligent hiring and/or retention claims, and vicarious liability claims grounded on joint venture.

A court may grant a motion to dismiss a claim if there is a “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In other words, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must state enough facts to constitute a claim for which relief would be possible on its face. This happens when a plaintiff pleads facts that permit the court to infer that the defendant is liable for the wrongdoing that is claimed. A motion to dismiss must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Florida Supreme Court Clarifies the Collateral Source Rule

Published on: January 4, 2016 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

The collateral source rule is rooted in the legal principle that compensation obtained by a plaintiff through a secondary source (i.e., health insurance) is irrelevant to the liability of the defendant. Put another way, a defendant does not get to pay less for his or her negligence simply because a third party compensates an injured individual. As a result, evidence of a plaintiff’s health insurance is generally not admissible for consideration.

There was a limited exception to this rule that pertained to free or low-cost collateral source benefits, such as Medicare and Medicaid benefits. The idea was that the question of Medicare and Medicaid was relevant to determining the plaintiff’s need for long-term medical expenses. Determinations of future medical expenses are often some of the most complex questions that are addressed in Florida personal injury cases.

Florida Appeals Court Resolves Summary Judgment Issue in Deadly Pedestrian Accident Case

Published on: December 24, 2015 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

Unfortunately, pedestrians are injured and killed throughout the United States every year. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), approximately 4,735 pedestrians were killed in 2013, while an estimated 66,000 were injured. The state of Florida has a major issue when it comes to pedestrian accidents and has one of the highest pedestrian accident rates in the country. If you’ve been injured as a pedestrian, it its important to speak to a Miami injury attorney who can assess the merits of your case.

In Panzera v. O’Neal, a man was hit by a semi-truck while he was trying to cross a multi-lane interstate on foot in 2011. After the accident, the man’s estate filed a negligence claim against the truck driver and his employer.

The defendants responded by filing a motion for summary judgment. In a negligence claim, granting summary judgment is improper unless the defendant can show the complete absence of negligence or that the plaintiff’s negligence was the sole reason for his or her injury. As a result, the party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Uninsured Motorist Benefits in Car Accident Cases

Published on: December 17, 2015 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

In Tibbets v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., a Florida plaintiff pursued uninsured motorist (UM) benefits from her parents’ automobile insurer after an automobile accident that took place in September 2014. At the time of the wreck, the plaintiff lived with her parents and was riding as a passenger in one of the cars insured by the policy. The insurance policy provided $100,000 in bodily injury and $100,000 in UM benefits. The plaintiff was named as a “resident relative” under the insurance policy. The driver of the car did not have permission to drive the car. In fact, the driver did not have any motor vehicle insurance at the time.

After the collision, the defendant denied liability coverage to Walker for the accident, since he did not have permission to drive the car. The plaintiff then pursued UM benefits under the defendant’s insurance policy.

Ordinary Negligence vs. Medical Negligence in Florida

Published on: December 9, 2015 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

Under Florida law, medical malpractice cases are subject to certain procedural requirements. If you have been injured by a health care professional, it is important to speak to a qualified Miami medical malpractice lawyer who can assess the merits of your case. At the Law Offices of Robert Dixon, our team has handled a variety of medical malpractice claims and can help you as well.

In Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics v. Estate of Lawson, the court addressed the distinction between medical negligence and ordinary negligence. The facts of the case are as follows. For safety reasons, a female patient was locked in a psychiatric unit of a hospital. After being there for more than two months, the patient managed to take an employee’s keys and escape from the facility. She ran onto a nearby highway, where she was hit and ultimately killed by a truck.

The patient’s estate filed a wrongful death claim against the hospital. The lawsuit alleged ordinary negligence. The hospital responded by filing a motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to follow the special pre-suit requirements for medical malpractice cases.