South Florida Injury Lawyer Blawg

Rear-end accidents are the most common type of accidents on the road. If you have sustained injuries in a rear-end crash, you may be entitled to compensation from the at-fault party. At the Law Offices of Robert Dixon, our trusted Miami rear-end accident attorneys will analyze the circumstances surrounding your accident and help you determine a fair value for your injuries and harm.

In Restal v. Nocera, an accident took place in Brevard County in which the defendant’s vehicle rear-ended the plaintiff’s car. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant alleging permanent bodily injury and various other related damages. During deposition, the plaintiff said she was going to make a U-turn, moved toward the median and slowed down to approximately thirty miles an hour. She claimed that she never used the brakes. She then realized that she couldn’t make a U-turn at which point the defendant struck her car from behind. The defendant told a different story. He stated that the plaintiff slammed on her brakes and was turning towards the center median when he hit her and admitted that he could have prevented the accident if he had left more space between his vehicle and the plaintiff’s vehicle.

The trial court granted summary judgment against the defendant based on his admission as well as the presumption of liability in rear-end accident cases. Thus, the trial was held only on how much the plaintiff was owed. The defendant appealed stating that his testimony was enough to raise an issue about whether the plaintiff’s comparative negligence was a contributing factor in the accident.

Continue Reading ›

If you have been injured in a car accident, you need a skilled legal advocate on your side. At the Law Offices of Robert Dixon, our reputable Miami auto accident attorneys thoroughly understand the nuances of Florida personal injury law, including the process of obtaining evidence from the other parties in the case.

Dade Truss Co. v. Beaty

In a recent case, a Florida appeals court held that a defendant could not improperly avoid discovery based on untrue claims of privilege. In July of 2016, the plaintiffs got into a motor vehicle accident with the defendant, who was driving a tractor-trailer owned by his employer. In September 2016, the plaintiffs filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, shortly after which began the process of discovery. During the process, the defendants noted a private investigator as a fact witness. The private investigator was subpoenaed for a deposition and he was requested to bring all documents relevant to his investigation of the plaintiff. When the deposition ended, the plaintiff’s lawyer stated that the private investigator would give his opinions on a future date.

The plaintiffs then made a request for production, which is a legal request for documents related to the case made to the opposing party. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought documents that showed the private investigator’s insights and observations. The defendants objected citing work product privilege and removing the private investigator from the witness list. The trial court overruled the defendant’s objection. In addition, defendants objected to other requests for production citing work product privilege for some and general objections to the others. However, the defendants did not file a privilege log identifying the documents they claimed to be privileged. As such, the trial court overruled the objections and ordered document production within ten days. The defendants filed a certiorari petition.

Continue Reading ›