Car Accident

Determining Damages in South Florida Car Accidents

Published on: September 21, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

After someone is involved in a Florida car accident, they may seek compensation through a South Florida personal injury lawsuit. In order to successfully bring a case against an allegedly negligent driver, a personal injury plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s actions resulted in their injuries.Once a plaintiff establishes that a defendant violated a duty of care that was owed to the plaintiff, the next step is to determine the damages that the plaintiff is owed. The calculation of damages in a Florida car accident case can be a very contentious and complex issue, depending on the surrounding circumstances.

Some types of damages are fairly easy to calculate. For example, determining the amount of past medical expenses may be as easy as reviewing medical bills. However, figuring out the exact amount of damages is not always straightforward, especially when there are subsequent injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

Court Determines Business Was Not Liable for Accident Caused by Delivery Driver

Published on: September 11, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a car accident case that will be of interest to South Florida car accident victims because it illustrates the limits of the doctrine of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to hold a third party responsible for the negligent acts of another party. The classic example of vicarious liability is when an employee causes an accident while working for his employer, and the accident victim seeks to hold the employer liable for the employee’s negligence.In some cases, if an employee negligently causes an accident while acting within the scope of his employment, anyone injured in that accident may seek compensation not just from the employee but also from the employer. However, the burden rests with the accident victim to prove that the relationship between the parties is sufficient to establish legal liability. Generally speaking, this means showing that the person who caused the accident was actually an employee and was acting within the scope of their employment. The case mentioned above illustrates how courts analyze these claims and which types of evidence courts may consider when determining if a person is an employee.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in a car accident with a delivery driver who was working for the defendant. The plaintiff filed a personal injury case against the driver of the vehicle as well as the company that hired him.

According to Recent Study, Florida Ranks Among States with the Worst Drivers

Published on: September 4, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida has long had a reputation for being a state with a large number of “bad drivers.” Indeed, Florida drivers are involved in over 250,000 auto accidents each year, with over 100,000 of those accidents resulting in serious injuries. In all, Florida car accidents are responsible for approximately 1,800 fatalities each year.It may come as no surprise, then, that according to a study released earlier this month, Florida ranks among the states with the worst drivers in the country. The study took various variables into account, including the total number of drivers, the number of DUI accidents, the number of traffic tickets issued, the total number of traffic fatalities, and the number of uninsured drivers. After all of the data was analyzed, Florida was ranked as the state with the worst drivers.

Interestingly, one key variable that stuck out when looking at Florida driver data was the unusual number of internet searches for “speeding tickets” and “traffic tickets.” Presumably, if a motorist is researching traffic tickets, they have recently been issued a ticket or warning by a police officer. Florida also had the second-highest rate of uninsured drivers in the nation, second only to Oklahoma.

Establishing Causation in South Florida Car Accidents

Published on: August 24, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

There are several elements that a plaintiff must establish before they are able to recover financially after a South Florida car accident. One of these key elements is causation. Simply stated, the causation element requires a plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s conduct was the legal cause of their injuries, or, to use the legal terminology, the “proximate cause.”There is not an exact definition of the term proximate cause, and determining whether a defendant’s actions constitute proximate cause is normally left up to a jury. However, in some situations, a court may determine whether proximate cause exists as a matter of law through a summary judgment proceeding. Whether being decided by a judge or jury, the question is whether the defendant’s actions more likely than not “foreseeably and substantially contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.” Importantly, proximate cause does not need to be the only cause of an accident.

A recent personal injury case illustrates how one state court’s causation analysis resulted in the dismissal of a car accident victim’s case.

The Importance of Pre-Trial Evidentiary Rulings in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: August 17, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The judge’s primary function in a Florida personal injury case is to make sure that the trial follows all of the applicable rules, both substantive and procedural. One of the most important tasks a judge performs is determining which evidence is admissible and may be considered by the jury. Indeed, in many cases, powerful evidence that could change the outcome of a case is not admitted for a variety of reasons.Evidentiary issues are normally handled in pre-trial motions, before the jury is empaneled. This way, the jury is not at risk of hearing any of the contested evidence, should the judge determine that it is not admissible. These pre-trial motion hearings can be critical to a Florida personal injury case, since they often determine the path a case will take. For example, if a plaintiff is able to get a pre-trial ruling admitting favorable evidence, the defense may consider settling the case rather than taking the chance of proceeding to trial.

In a recent Florida appellate opinion, the court discussed which evidence should have been admitted in a car accident case.

The Use of Expert Witnesses in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Published on: August 14, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida personal injury cases are routinely decided by a jury, unless both parties agree that a judge should hear the case. When a jury is empaneled, it should be representative of the community where the case will be heard. Almost always, juries consist of laypeople, meaning that the individual jurors have not been schooled on the law or how it applies to a given case. The judge’s job is to assist the jury by providing instructions on what the ultimate question in the case is and what the jurors should consider in making their determination.In some Florida personal injury cases, confusing scientific or medical issues arise. In such cases, an expert witness may be required to explain to the jury certain principles or concepts. An expert witness is usually a professional in the field at issue who has specialized knowledge through experience or education. In many Florida personal injury cases, each side presents their own expert witness in hopes of persuading the jury. There are complex rules regarding the admissibility of expert testimony; however, once testimony is admitted, it is up to the fact-finder to determine how convincing the testimony is. A recent case illustrates the difference between admitting evidence and assigning the evidence weight.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was driving along the highway, about to pass a Department of Transportation vehicle that was pulled off to the side of the road. As she passed, she heard a loud noise. The next thing she knew, her car was upside down and sliding along the roadway. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident, and she filed a personal injury lawsuit against the Department of Transportation, as the employer of the driver who was alleged to have pulled out in front of her.

Court Determines Good Samaritan Was “Occupying” Vehicle While Providing Road-Side Assistance, Requiring Insurance Company to Cover Accident Victim’s Claim

Published on: July 17, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Anyone who has been injured in a South Florida car accident knows how difficult it can be dealing with insurance companies. In many cases, insurance companies will seek out ways to settle claims for as little as possible or deny claims outright. Earlier this month, an appellate court in Rhode Island issued a written opinion in a car accident case involving a passenger’s claim against the driver’s uninsured motorist protection policy. The court concluded that the insurance company improperly denied coverage because the woman was “occupying” the vehicle at the time of the accident, and her claim should have been approved.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the passenger in a friend’s car. The two were on their way to the grocery store and had pulled into the parking lot when they began talking in the car. As they were talking, the plaintiff heard a loud bang and turned her head to see that two cars had collided on an adjacent road.

The plaintiff exited her friend’s vehicle and approached the scene of the accident. She walked around the back of one of the vehicles involved in the accident to get its license plate number. As she was looking down at the license plate, another vehicle crashed into one of the cars involved in the initial accident. The plaintiff was struck by one of the cars and was injured as a result.

Evidence of Similar Incidents Involving an Alleged Defect May Be Admissible in Some Product Liability Lawsuits

Published on: July 10, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When someone is injured due to a negligently designed or defectively manufactured product, they may be able to pursue compensation for their injuries from several parties, including the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer. These product liability lawsuits often are brought under a theory of strict liability, which does not require a plaintiff to prove that the defendant was negligent. However, it may benefit a plaintiff to establish that a defendant did know about the alleged defect because this may increase the damages that they are entitled to obtain.One way that product liability plaintiffs can establish a defendant’s knowledge of an alleged defect is through “other similar incident” (OSI) evidence. OSI evidence, often presented through an expert witness, tells of other incidents in which the same product caused an injury or was defective in a manner which is similar to that which the plaintiff alleges. A recent case issued by a federal appellate court discusses OSI evidence and when it may be appropriate.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were stopped at a red light at the end of a highway off-ramp when a 1996 Toyota Camry traveling at 75 miles per hour rear-ended them. At the time, the driver explained that he tried to brake, but the car instead began to accelerate. It was not until several years later that Toyota announced a recall of 1996 Toyota Camrys, based on several other reports that the vehicles were randomly accelerating and could not be stopped by applying the brakes.

Report Indicates Driver in Fatal Auto-Pilot Accident Was Given Many Warnings Prior to Fatal Collision

Published on: June 26, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Last year, a Florida motorist was killed in a traffic accident when the Tesla car he was operating crashed into the side of a semi-truck. Evidently, the Tesla was traveling at highway speeds when a semi-truck pulled in front of the car. At the time, the Tesla was in auto-pilot mode and did not stop in time to avoid a collision with the side of the truck.Since this fatal accident was the first involving a vehicle with the new auto-pilot technology, it raised many practical and legal questions. For example, which parties should be responsible when a self-driving car is involved in a serious accident?

In a recently released report by the National Transportation Safety Bureau, it was revealed that the driver of the Tesla was given numerous warnings to retake control of the vehicle prior to the fatal collision. According to an article detailing the report’s findings, the driver was heavily relying on the vehicle’s auto-pilot technology. In fact, of the 41 minutes leading up to the accident, the vehicle was in auto-pilot mode for over 37 minutes. Of those 37 minutes, the driver’s hands were only on the wheel for about 30 seconds. The report also explained that the vehicle’s warning system recommended that the driver place his hands back on the wheel seven times in the moments leading up to the accident.

Who Is Responsible in Florida When Someone Causes an Accident Using a Borrowed or Stolen Car?

Published on: June 19, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In many South Florida auto accident cases, there are actually several parties who can potentially be held responsible for a victim’s injuries. For example, if an employee causes an accident while on the job, both the employee as well as the employer can often be named in a subsequent personal injury lawsuit. The legal doctrine that allows this type of claim against a third party is called vicarious liability.As a general rule, under the theory of vicarious liability, when a driver causes an accident while using another person’s car, both the driver as well as the vehicle’s owner may be held liable to the accident victim for any injuries. This general rule stands true to the extent that the person driving the car had permission to use the vehicle, and their use of the vehicle did not exceed the permission given by the car’s owner. A recent Florida appellate court case involving an accident that was caused by a driver who took a car without the permission of the owner illustrates the outer bounds of vicarious liability.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was riding his motorcycle when he was struck by another motorist. The car that struck the plaintiff was owned by a rental car agency and was rented to a woman who was not involved in the accident. There was contradicting evidence regarding how the driver obtained the keys to the car. The driver lived with the woman who rented the car, and he claimed that he took the keys off the kitchen counter. However, the woman claimed that she kept the keys in her locked room and never gave the driver permission to use the vehicle.