Badge - American Association for Justice
Badge - The American Trial Lawyers Association
Badge - Florida Justice Association
Badge - Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Badge - AV Preeminent
Badge - The National Trial Lawyers Top 100
Badge - The National Trial Lawyers Top 40 under 40
Badge - American Inns of Court
Badge - Best Lawyers
Badge - Super Lawyers Top Rated Attorney

A recent decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal underscores the challenges of premises liability cases involving hazards that are not immediately noticeable. In this case, a customer tripped over a furniture trolley left on the sales floor of a retail store. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the store, deciding that the cart was an open and obvious hazard.. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the cart was visible from the customer’s perspective.

This ruling underscores the duty of Florida property owners to ensure their premises are free of dangerous conditions, even if those conditions might be visible under certain circumstances. It also illustrates the importance of a comprehensive examination of evidence in premises liability claims.

What Makes a Hazard “Open and Obvious”?

Under Florida law, property owners are not automatically liable for every hazard on their premises. If a danger is considered “open and obvious,” property owners may not have a duty to warn patrons or remove the hazard. However, whether a hazard is truly open and obvious depends on the specific circumstances of the incident, including the victim’s perspective and the layout of the premises.

In this case, the victim argued that a wall of merchandise obstructed her view of the furniture trolley and that she only became aware of it after tripping. While video footage showed the trolley from certain angles, it did not conclusively capture the victim’s line of sight or demonstrate that the cart was clearly visible from her position. The appellate court determined that this lack of definitive evidence raised a factual question suitable for a jury to decide.

Continue Reading ›

A recent decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal underscores the critical role expert testimony plays in personal injury cases. In this case, the defendant admitted to negligence in a car accident, but the trial centered on a dispute over the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries. Competing experts presented conflicting evidence, leaving the jury to determine the credibility and weight of their opinions.

Expert testimony can make or break your claim if you are involved in a personal injury case. Understanding how experts influence jury decisions and knowing how to address disputes between them is essential to achieving a favorable outcome.

Why Expert Testimony Matters in Personal Injury Cases

Expert witnesses are often the cornerstone of personal injury cases, significantly when the focus shifts from liability to the extent of injuries and damages. Medical experts, in particular, provide critical insight into the nature of a plaintiff’s injuries, the treatment required, and the long-term impact on their life.

In the Fifth District case, the plaintiff’s medical experts likely helped the jury understand the severity of her injuries, while the defense relied on experts to minimize those claims. This tug-of-war highlights the importance of presenting transparent, credible, and persuasive expert testimony to support your case. A strong expert witness can lend weight to your claim and provide the jury with the evidence they need to rule in your favor.

Continue Reading ›

A recent decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal addresses an essential issue in premises liability cases: whether a business can be held responsible for a customer’s injuries caused by a slippery floor. The case involved a customer who slipped and fell in a restaurant restroom, allegedly due to a freshly mopped floor. The customer argued that the restaurant failed to adequately warn patrons about the dangerous condition and failed to maintain the floor in a safe condition.

The appellate court ultimately reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the restaurant, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to determine whether the restaurant had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet floor. This ruling highlights key considerations for slip-and-fall claims in Florida, particularly the burden of proof required to establish negligence and the significance of evidence like witness testimony and maintenance procedures.

Establishing Negligence in Florida Premises Liability Cases

In Florida, property owners must maintain their premises reasonably safe and warn visitors of known hazards. For a successful premises liability claim, you must demonstrate:

  • The property owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard;
  • The hazard caused your injury; and
  • The property owner failed to take reasonable steps to address or warn about the danger.

In this case, the victim presented evidence that the restroom floor was wet due to an employee’s recent mopping. The restaurant argued that there was no proof the floor was wet at the time of the fall. Still, the victim’s testimony, combined with evidence of the employee’s mopping practices, created a genuine issue of material fact for the jury.

Continue Reading ›

A recent ruling by Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal emphasizes the critical role causation plays in personal injury claims following car accidents. In this case, a victim sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained in a 2019 rear-end collision. While the jury ultimately awarded over $1.6 million, the defense argued on appeal that causation remained a contested issue, and the trial court erred by removing it from jury consideration.

The appellate court’s decision to reverse the directed verdict on causation underscores the importance of proving the direct connection between the at-fault party’s negligence and the injuries claimed. In Florida car accident cases, demonstrating causation is often among the most challenging and hotly debated aspects.

What is Causation in Florida Personal Injury Cases?

Causation refers to the legal requirement that a victim must prove their injuries directly resulted from the at-fault party’s negligence. In car accident cases, this means showing that the at-fault party’s actions, such as failing to stop in time, caused the injuries for which the victim seeks compensation.

Continue Reading ›

A recent multi-vehicle crash in Miami left five people hospitalized, highlighting the serious risks of accidents involving multiple cars. According to reports, the collision occurred near Northwest 103rd Street and Northwest 17th Avenue, resulting in a chaotic scene of damaged vehicles, blocked traffic, and emergency responders working to assist the injured. While authorities are still investigating the cause of the crash, incidents like these raise important questions about liability, safety, and the legal options available to accident victims.

At Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, we understand how overwhelming the aftermath of a car accident can be. From navigating medical treatments to dealing with insurance claims, the road to recovery is often complicated. If you or a loved one has been injured in a similar accident, knowing your rights and legal remedies is crucial to securing the compensation you need.

Common Causes of Multi-Vehicle Crashes

Multi-vehicle crashes often result from a chain reaction of events. Speeding, distracted driving, poor weather conditions, or driver inexperience can all contribute to collisions that involve multiple cars. In some cases, a single negligent driver may set off a series of events that lead to widespread damage and injury. In Miami, where high traffic density and aggressive driving habits are common, these risks are amplified.

Determining fault in multi-vehicle accidents can be challenging, as multiple parties may share responsibility. For example, one driver may be at fault for following too closely, while another could be speeding or failing to maintain proper lane discipline. These complex scenarios make it essential to have an experienced attorney evaluate your case and gather evidence to establish liability.

Continue Reading ›

A tragic crash in Miami Gardens earlier this week involving a Publix tractor-trailer and a pickup truck has raised questions about liability in accidents with commercial vehicles. The collision occurred near a Publix distribution center when the tractor-trailer was making a left turn, and a speeding pickup truck slammed into its trailer. Sadly, the pickup truck driver did not survive, and the incident highlights the complexities of determining responsibility in such cases under Florida law.

Can Employers Be Held Accountable for Their Drivers’ Actions?

In Florida, trucking companies like Publix may be held accountable for accidents involving their drivers through vicarious liability under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior. This principle means an employer can be held responsible for the negligent actions of its employees if those actions occur within the scope of employment.

Florida law allows injured individuals to seek punitive damages in certain auto accident cases where a driver’s behavior is deemed reckless or grossly negligent. A recent case involving an alleged texting-and-driving collision sheds light on what qualifies for punitive damages and the challenges plaintiffs face in proving such claims.

Texting While Driving and Gross Negligence

The case arose from a crash between a truck and a golf cart at a busy intersection. The victims alleged that the truck driver was texting while driving, which caused the accident. During his deposition, the truck driver admitted to briefly looking at his phone to check a text from his wife. He acknowledged that texting while driving is reckless and unreasonable.

A recent Florida workers’ compensation case sheds light on the challenges injured workers face when seeking benefits for ongoing care. The case involved a cashier who suffered an electrical shock while plugging in a cash register at work. Although her initial injury was accepted as compensable, her employer and insurer later denied her claims for additional treatment, arguing that a preexisting genetic condition was the major contributing cause (MCC) of her medical needs. This case highlights the importance of understanding your rights and options when facing a denial in Florida’s workers’ compensation system.

Injured Worker’s Fight for Ongoing Care

The worker initially reached maximum medical improvement in 2020 after treatment for her workplace injury. However, in 2022, her symptoms worsened significantly, leading to issues such as balance problems, hand weakness, and bladder dysfunction. Further evaluation revealed a genetic condition, neurofibromatosis type I, which had caused tumors compressing her spinal cord. She underwent surgery to remove the most problematic tumor, but her doctor noted that additional tumors would require ongoing care.

Despite the severity of her symptoms and the connection to the initial work injury, her employer and insurer denied her claims for continued treatment. They argued that the genetic condition, not the work injury, was the MCC of her medical needs. The worker filed a petition for benefits to secure the necessary care, but the employer disputed her claim, relying on earlier medical opinions.

Florida’s Major Contributing Cause Standard

Under Florida Statutes § 440.09(1)(b), workers’ compensation benefits are only awarded if the workplace accident is the major contributing cause of the injury or need for treatment. This standard requires showing that the work injury is more than 50% responsible for the condition compared to any preexisting conditions.

Continue Reading ›

A tragic construction accident recently claimed the life of a worker in Miami Beach, underscoring the dangers faced by those in the construction industry. The incident, which occurred on a job site near Ocean Terrace, is being investigated as a potential traffic homicide, which may involve heavy machinery or road-related hazards. While the exact details of this accident remain under investigation, it raises important questions about the legal protections available to construction workers and their families when a fatal accident occurs on the job.

In Florida, construction workers are exposed to numerous daily risks, from falls and equipment malfunctions to vehicle collisions on or near construction sites. When these risks lead to injury or death, legal options are available to the worker or their surviving family members, including workers’ compensation benefits and, in some cases, wrongful death lawsuits. Understanding the distinctions between these legal options is essential for ensuring the family receives the full compensation they deserve.

The Role of Workers’ Compensation in Construction Accidents

Workers’ compensation is a no-fault system designed to provide financial assistance to employees who are injured or killed while on the job. In the event of a construction worker’s death, the worker’s surviving family members may be entitled to death benefits under Florida’s workers’ compensation laws. These benefits generally include coverage for funeral expenses and a percentage of the worker’s lost wages up to a certain limit. However, workers’ compensation is limited in scope—it does not provide compensation for non-economic damages such as pain and suffering or loss of companionship.

Continue Reading ›

A recent decision by Florida’s appellate court sheds light on important issues surrounding uninsured motorist (UM) coverage and the responsibilities of insurance companies when policies are updated or expanded. The case involved whether a newly insured party added to an existing policy was entitled to UM coverage despite the original policyholder’s prior rejection. While the trial court initially ruled in favor of the new insured, the appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying how UM coverage is handled under Florida law.

In Florida, auto insurance policies must include UM coverage unless the named insured explicitly rejects it in writing. This coverage protects individuals involved in accidents with uninsured or underinsured drivers. Understanding when and how UM coverage applies, particularly when new individuals are added to a policy, is critical for drivers seeking compensation after a collision.

Uninsured Motorist Coverage and Policy Changes in Florida

In this Florida case, the dispute arose after a new spouse was added as a named insured to an existing auto insurance policy. The insurance company had not provided the newly added insured a new UM Selection/Rejection Form, leading to a lawsuit. The trial court ruled that the new insured should have been offered the opportunity to accept or reject UM coverage. However, the appellate court disagreed, stating that the original named insured’s rejection of UM coverage applied to all subsequent policy changes, including adding a new insured.

Continue Reading ›

Contact Information