South Florida Injury Lawyer Blawg

Articles Posted in Negligence

Published on: | by

Loss of vision in one or both eyes is a traumatic and painful experience. Any interference with an individual’s ability to see can affect every aspect of his or her daily life. Even minor injuries to the eyes can leave long-term complications for the victim to deal with. Individuals who suffer from eye injuries deal with an extraordinary amount of physical, emotional, and psychological stress. If you or someone close to you has suffered vision loss or an injury to the eye, you have the right to seek compensation.

Eye injuries can occur in a variety of ways, ranging from automobile accidents to slip and falls to animal bites. In some cases, eye injuries happen due to mistakes or errors in medical procedures. Victims can suffer from a number of eye injuries, such as detached retina, eye laceration, blindness, cornea injuries, chemical burns to the eye, orbital fractures, and more.

If you suffer an eye injury due to the negligence or recklessness of another, you will be able to seek compensation for your injuries by filing a negligence lawsuit against the at-fault party. The principle of negligence mandates that individuals use reasonable care when acting. Reasonable care refers to a standard of behavior that is sensible or prudent. The idea behind negligence is to take reasonable precautions in one’s actions or omissions to prevent foreseeable harm to others. In order to establish negligence, a plaintiff has to establish four elements. The defendant must have owed the plaintiff a duty of care to act reasonably, the defendant must have breached the duty of care by acting unreasonably, the accident or occurrence must have happened because of the defendant’s breach, and the plaintiff must have suffered harm or injury to the eye as a result. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Premises liability issues can arise in a variety of ways. Whether it’s through a slip and fall or an elevator malfunction, property owners have a legal obligation to keep their premises in reasonably safe conditions for visitors. An injured victim can typically sue a property owner for damages based on premises liability if the plaintiff can establish that the injuries were caused by the landowner’s negligence. Premises liability law is complex, which is why it is important to seek the help of a qualified attorney who understands the nuances of this area of the law.

In Friedrich v. Fetterman & Assocs, the Florida Supreme Court held that a law firm was liable for injuries incurred by the plaintiff when the chair he was sitting on suddenly collapsed. The plaintiff was a potential client visiting the law firm’s office for a consultation regarding an automobile accident he had recently gotten into. When the chair collapsed, the plaintiff fell backwards onto the floor, hitting his head. After the incident, the plaintiff voiced concerns of persistent headaches, neck and back pain, and a host of other problems. Eventually, he went through spine surgery, which he claimed improved his overall condition. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Unfortunately, slip and fall accidents happen routinely in Florida and throughout the United States. There are a number of reasons that slip and fall accidents occur, from uneven sidewalks to slippery floors. Generally, it is the responsibility of a landlord to ensure that the premises are in safe condition for visitors. If your slip and fall happens because of a landlord’s negligence, you may be able to take legal action to recover costs associated with your injuries.

In Hillstone Restaurant Group v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, the appellate court addressed a slip and fall case in which the plaintiff fell on a sidewalk near the entrance of a P.F. Chang’s restaurant. The plaintiff alleged that she tripped and fell due to an uneven sidewalk. She later filed a negligence action against the restaurant and the property owner, who had leased the space to the restaurant.

A negligence claim is a legal action that basically alleges the defendant failed to use reasonable care, which is ultimately what led to the plaintiff’s injuries. In other words, negligence is the failure to take proper care in doing something that leads to harm. In order to prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care and that the defendant breached the duty of care, which directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries or property damage. A plaintiff cannot recover any monetary compensation unless he or she has first established negligence. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

If you or someone you know has been injured in a train accident, an experienced Florida accident attorney can help. Train accidents can be particularly devastating for a vehicle or person with which the train collides, as well as people on the train. The sheer force, speed, and impact of a train can lead to serious permanent bodily harm, and in some cases even death. We understand the stress and emotional toll a train accident can have on a victim and an entire family, which is why we are committed to providing compassionate and competent representation to our clients.

There are a number of reasons railroad accidents can occur. When a railroad crossing is not clearly marked or improperly designated, the consequences can be devastating. When a railroad crossing is not clearly indicated, it can be extremely dangerous for cars, bicyclists, or pedestrians crossing the railroad tracks. Unless the obstacle on the tracks is very far away from the moving train, the train conductor typically does not have enough time to slow down or stop a train before it crashes into the object on the train tracks. For example, a train would take close to a mile to come to a stop if it was traveling at 50 miles per hour. Other reasons for car accidents can include derailments, grade crossing accidents, or accidents due to mechanical failures.

Determining responsibility for the improper marking of railroad crossings can be a complicated process because several parties may be at fault. Under Florida law, trains are considered “common carriers,” which means they are highly regulated and must abide by certain federal and state regulations. A common carrier should operate with the highest degree of safety and care while transporting passengers to their destinations. Thus, train operators and local railroads are responsible if an accident resulted from a failure of the railroad to meet the high standard of care required. 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

Over the last few years, the cruise industry has consistently grown. Due to Florida’s geographic location on the coast, the state boasts two of out of the three busiest cruise ship ports in the nation. Each year, many people from across the country travel to Florida to embark on a cruise. A common misconception when a traveler is injured at sea is that Florida law applies. However, this is simply not true. Federal admiralty law, also known as maritime law, applies to injuries that take place aboard ships on navigable waters. In Gandhi v. Carnival Corporation, the Court discusses the concept of res ipsa loquitur and how it relates to a plaintiff’s pleadings.

The facts of the case are as follows. Mr. and Mrs. Gandhi sued Carnival Corporation for negligence, referencing res ipsa loquitur, after their daughter was injured when her arm was caught in an elevator on the cruise ship during a voyage at sea. According to the complaint, the plaintiff’s daughter’s arm was “drawn into the space into which one side of the elevator door was sliding.” The doors supposedly attempted to close and open with the girl’s arm still in the way. Finally, a third party had to help release her arm. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff’s daughter sustained multiple injuries, including a severing of several tendons, a deep laceration, and a fracture.

Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine of law that assumes an individual to be negligent if he or she had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury, even if there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence. The Latin phrase literally translates to “the thing speaks for itself.” Here, the plaintiff’s must have shown that the incident or injury is not the type that would occur without someone’s negligence, that the elevator was in Carnival Corporation’s “exclusive control” at the time of the incident, and that the injury was not caused by any voluntary action or contribution by the plaintiff’s daughter. 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

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 ›

Published on: | by

Throughout the United States and the state of Florida, a number of people are injured every year through the use of dangerous products. Injuries can arise in a number of ways, from the user using the product incorrectly to the manufacturer failing to provide proper instructions. Injuries can range from minor to severe, and in the worst cases even death can happen. Under Florida law, if a user is injured because a manufacturer or seller negligently failed to ensure the user was aware of the potentials risks and hazards associated with the product, the manufacturer or seller may be held liable for the user’s injuries.

In Rodriguez v. Akal Security, the plaintiff was being held at a processing center after illegally entering the country. During his time there, he was injured at the center’s gym when he fell off the “ProMaxima Hip and Dip Combo,” a piece of exercise equipment allowing users to do dips on one side and chip ups on the other. The plaintiff was having trouble reaching the side of the machine used to do chin ups and decided to climb to on the side used for dips in order to reach the chin up bar. While attempting to reach the chin up bar, the plaintiff fell and sustained injuries. Akal Security provided security for the processing center at the time, and an Akal employee had seen the plaintiff climbing over the equipment but had failed to intervene.

The plaintiff sued Akal for negligence, alleging that its employees should have warned him about the potential dangers of the equipment. The U.S. District Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish a case for negligence under Florida law. The court noted that there is no duty to warn of an obvious condition, such as in this case. 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 © 2025, Law Offices of Robert Dixon
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design