Florida Personal Injury Caselaw Category Archives - Page 9 of 14 - South Florida Injury Lawyer Blawg Published by Miami Accident Attorneys

Negligent Entrustment in Florida Jet Ski Accident Case

Published on: July 28, 2015 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

In the case of Gozleveli v. Kohnke, Florida residents Tamer and Farideh Gozleveli purchased two new jet skis for their family to use – including their adult son, Aydin. In February of 2012, Aydin, his friend Ryan de la Nuez, and Karen Kohnke met up to ride the jet skis. For most of the excursion, Ryan operated one jet ski, while Kohnke rode as a passenger. Aydin operated the other jet ski. Sometime later, Ryan allowed Kohnke to take over and drive the jet ski he was originally operating. Aydin did not initially realize that Kohnke was driving. However, when he did notice, he did not take any actions to demand that Ryan drive instead of Kohnke. Aydin eventually asked Kohnke to follow him home.

On their way back, Kohnke allegedly lost control of the jet ski and crashed into a nearby dock. The accident led to the woman suffering a number of serious injuries. In fact, Kohnke had to spend two months in a medical facility to recover. Subsequently, she filed a negligent entrustment claim against Aydin in the Southern District of Florida.

Right to Privacy in Florida Injury Case – Muller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Published on: June 18, 2015 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

Defendants in personal injury cases are notorious for trying to get as much information as possible from the plaintiffs. Florida law provides its citizens with the right of privacy, but this right is not absolute. While some requests for information are legitimate, others go too far. As a victim in a personal injury case, we know the last things you want to think about are procedural rules. However, these rules can significantly affect your case.

Under Florida rules of civil procedure, a defendant can seek discovery of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to the case. A discovery request for inadmissible evidence will likely be allowed if it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

In Muller v. Walmart Stores, Inc., the Florida Second District Court of Appeal assessed a grant of disclosure of a plaintiff’s military records to a defendant in a truck accident case.

Slip and Fall Case on Florida College Campus

Published on: June 10, 2015 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

Every year, a number of people in Florida are injured in slip and fall accidents. If you or someone close to you has been injured in a slip and fall, you may be entitled to compensation for your harm. These cases can be complicated to handle, which is why it is best to seek the help of a qualified injury attorney who can assess the merits of your case.

In McCarthy v. Broward, the plaintiff filed a personal injury claim against Broward College after she slipped and fell on an unidentified liquid in an elevator on campus. The plaintiff alleged that Broward College knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known about the existence of the liquid.

Broward College sought summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff did not prove that the college had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition, as mandated under Florida Statutes, Section 768.0755.

Workers’ Compensation Case May be Subject to Time Frame – Limith v. Lenox on the Lake

Published on: May 20, 2015 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

If you were injured at your workplace, you may be entitled to compensation for the harm you’ve suffered. Workers’ compensation cases can be complicated to navigate, and having the right attorney on your side can make all the difference.

In the case of Limith v. Lenox on the Lake, a worker was injured in a workplace accident while working for an assisted living community in South Florida known as Lenox on the Lake. The worker subsequently filed a Petition for Benefits (PFB) in 2011. Under Florida law, a PFB is the document that starts the lawsuit. The PFB contains the disputed issues and is filed with the workers’ compensation court system.

A Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) reviewed the petition and then dismissed it but reserved jurisdiction over the employee’s claim for legal fees and costs. In 2013, the JCC denied the employer’s request to dismiss the employee’s claim for lack of prosecution. Florida Statute Section 440.25(4)(i) allows a judge to dismiss a PFB for lack of prosecution if there has been no recorded activity in the prior 12 months.

The Seat Belt Defense in Florida Accident Cases – Jones v. Alayon

Published on: May 13, 2015 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

Individuals who do not wear seat belts are much more likely to be injured in a motor vehicle accident than persons who do wear seat belts. This is precisely why so many states, including Florida, have mandatory seat belt laws. In Florida, defendants can use the seat belt defense to lessen liability.

In Jones v. Alayon, a Florida driver was rear-ended by the defendant, an off duty police officer. Upon impact, the driver’s car struck a guard rail and rolled over. The driver was ejected from the car and was subsequently run over by other vehicles on the road. The driver died as a result of the accident.

The defendant left the scene and reported his vehicle stolen before admitting that he caused the fatal wreck. The defendant was jailed for the occurrence.

Can You Be Considered Comparatively Negligent in Florida for Wearing High Heels?

Published on: May 13, 2015 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

When a defendant is sued, that defendant may raise an affirmative defense. Affirmative defenses are a type of defense in which a defendant presents additional facts to defeat the charges being brought. Just as the plaintiff must meet the burden of proof when bringing a claim, similarly, the defendant must meet a certain burden of proof to establish his or her affirmative defense.

In Bongiorno v. Americorp, the plaintiff slipped and fell on a slippery floor in the bathroom of her workplace. The plaintiff sustained injuries. She was wearing high heels at the time of the incident. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the property owner, alleging negligence. The defendant filed an answer denying liability and asserting the affirmative defense of comparative negligence. The matter proceeded to a bench trial. After reviewing the evidence, the trial court determined that the plaintiff was 50 percent comparatively negligent due to the fact that she wore four- to five-inch high-heeled shoes at the time of the accident.

The state of Florida operates under a comparative negligence system. This means that whatever amount an individual is negligent, that individual’s recovery will be limited by that amount. For example, if a plaintiff is deemed to be 40 percent negligent, that plaintiff’s maximum amount of recovery will be 60 percent. In other words, the plaintiff’s total award would be decreased by his or her fault. In this manner, the principle of comparative negligence apportions negligence among the various parties involved in the incident.

Is a Florida Resort that Provides Alcohol Liable When an Intoxicated Patron Drives and Injures Someone?

Published on: May 13, 2015 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

In the state of Florida, bars and restaurants that provide alcohol to individuals who later injure others in an automobile wreck may be liable in certain, limited situations. In Hall v. West, the appellate court affirmed a lower court ruling that a beach resort did not owe a duty of care to a person injured by an intoxicated defendant a number of miles away from the resort.

The facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries when he was hit by a speeding car driven by the defendant. The defendant was visiting a resort at the time of the accident. Prior to and after arriving at the resort, the defendant had consumed a number of alcoholic beverages and was inebriated. The resort’s security personnel told the defendant to leave and even escorted the defendant to his car. Approximately two hours later, and 13 miles away, the defendant hit the plaintiff. The defendant’s blood alcohol level was determined to be .188.

The plaintiff later filed a lawsuit against the defendant driver as well as the resort, alleging the resort was negligent in a number of ways. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the resort failed to identify that the defendant was intoxicated when he entered the premises, failed to make sure that the defendant left the premises safely, failed to utilize responsible persons to deal with intoxicated patrons, and failed to employ individuals who would use due care to ensure that policies and procedures were followed so that an intoxicated person would leave the premises safely.

The “Foreign Body” Instruction in Florida Medical Negligence Cases

Published on: April 15, 2015 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

In Dockswell v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., a Florida appeals court recently held that a surgical patient who claimed a nurse negligently left a medical instrument in his body was not entitled to a jury instruction that the presence of a foreign object in a patient’s body creates a presumption of negligence against the defendant. The court went on to explain that such a jury instruction is reserved for instances in which the plaintiff is unaware of how the alleged injury took place or the identity of the responsible party.

In the case at hand, the plaintiff was admitted to the hospital for surgery, which encompassed placing a drainage tube in his body to get rid of post-operative fluid. The following day, a nurse came to remove the drainage tube. The patient and his wife observed the nurse as she removed the tube. Some time later, the patient realized that part of the tube was inadvertently left inside his body. The patient had experienced pain for months before a CAT scan showed that part of the tube was still inside him. He had to undergo a second surgery to remove the tube.

Duty of Care Owed to Trespassers in Florida

Published on: April 15, 2015 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

In some cases, when an individual is attacked on someone else’s property, that individual may have a claim for negligent security. Negligent security claims can be complex and highly fact-intensive, which is why it is imperative to consult an experienced Miami injury lawyer who can assess the merits of your case. At the Law Offices of Robert Dixon, we have years of experience in virtually all aspects of personal injury law.

A claim of negligent security may arise when the property owner fails to provoke sufficient security. This may include insufficient lighting, security precautions and other measures.

In Nicholson v. Stoneybrook Apartments, the court dealt with the following issue: what duty does a property owner owe to a person whom it has told not to return to the property. The facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff was at a party at an apartment complex when she was shot in the leg. The incident took place in a common space of the complex.

Negligence Claims against Pharmacies in Florida

Published on: March 27, 2015 | by Law Offices of Robert Dixon

Negligence law encompasses a wide range of activities from car accidents to slip and fall cases. The four elements of negligence include: duty, breach, causation and damages. In some cases, the pertinent question is whether the defendant even owed plaintiff a duty. This is exactly the question the court addressed in the case of Oleckna v. Daytona Discount Pharmacy in regards to the duty of care a pharmacy owes its customers.

The facts of the case are as follows: A man was being treated for “stress syndrome” characterized by excessive anxiety and pain. He was being treated with prescriptions for various drugs, including Alprazolam and Acetaminophen combined with either Oxycodone or Hydrocodone. The treating physician kept prescribing these drugs over a two year time span. However, new prescriptions were given to the man before the old supply of drugs ran out. In other words, the man was consuming the drugs faster than he should have been. The pharmacy allegedly filled thirty or more prescriptions written days before the previous prescription should have been finished. The man ultimately died from an overdose of prescribed medication.

The man’s estate sued the pharmacy, claiming that the prescriptions were issued too closely in time and should only have been issued when the preceding ones had been exhausted. Put another way, the man’s estate alleged that the pharmacy was negligence because it continued to fill prescriptions so closely in time that the patient could suffer an overdose.