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

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 ›

Published on: | by

Rear end accidents happen frequently in the state of Florida and throughout the United States. In some situations, state law presumes that a rear end auto accident is caused by the rear driver in the accident. This assumption arises due to the idea that the rear driver should leave ample room between his or her car and the car ahead so that there is enough room to stop without causing an accident.

In Sorel v. Koonce, the plaintiff was rear ended by a driver who was operating a Comcast van. The plaintiff was in the car with her husband, who was driving the car, and her child, who was seated in the backseat at the time of the accident. According to the plaintiff, they were about to make a left turn when an oncoming driver ran a red light, prompting them to suddenly hit the brakes. This is when the Comcast van driver rear ended their vehicle. The plaintiff subsequently sued the driver as well as Comcast for her injuries.

The trial court denied plaintiff’s request for a directed verdict. The jury ultimately concluded that the Comcast van driver’s negligence did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff then filed a motion seeking a new trial. Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In a car accident, you are much more likely to be injured if you are not wearing a seat belt. This is precisely why Florida has mandatory seat belt laws. Seat belt laws apply to all automobiles including pickup trucks and vans on the road. All passengers in the front seat must wear a seat belt and all passengers under 18 must wear a seat belt. In Florida, there are legal consequences for not wearing a seat belt.

When an individual is driving without a seatbelt, they increase their risk of injury in case of an accident. Florida law follows the doctrine of comparative negligence which means if you contribute to the accident then the amount you would otherwise recover in damages may be reduced in proportion to your fault. For example, if you are deemed 20 percent responsible for the accident then your maximum recovery will be 80 percent of the total damages. Comparative negligence states aim to hold each party responsible in relation to their fault, no more, no less.

If you’ve been in a collision and there is evidence that you were not wearing your seat belt at the time, then the defendant or the insurance company can point to the fact that your injuries were at least partially your fault. In other words, the defendant can use the seat belt defense to lessen their own responsibility. In Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corporation, the Florida Supreme Court held that the failure to use a seat belt “would henceforth be raised by an affirmative defense of comparative negligence.” Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, property owners may be liable for injuries caused on their premises as a result of defective or faulty property conditions. The law, however, gives property owners a defense for dangerous conditions on the property that are “open and obvious.” This is because if a condition is open and obvious, the tenant or visitor can avoid it and prevent injury to himself or herself.

In Wieder v. King Cole Condominium Association, the plaintiff was walking in a common area of her condominium building when she tripped over an area of the carpet that had buckled. The carpet had just been cleaned by the building’s cleaning staff and was still wet at the time of the accident. As a result of the fall, she sustained injuries to her arm, hand, and neck.

According to the plaintiff, she and other tenants had sent numerous complaints to the condominium’s management alerting them to the potentially dangerous condition of the carpet. Even so, the carpet had not yet been repaired. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the condominium building under the theory of negligence. Negligence occurs when a defendant fails to take reasonable care when doing something that results in an injury to another person. Here, the plaintiff alleged that the condo association had violated its duty to keep the common area safe for tenants. 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