Personal Injury

Florida’s Rule of Evidence Regarding Witnesses’ Inconsistent Statements

Published on: January 19, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In the initial aftermath of a Florida car accident, everyone’s adrenaline is pumping, and people are not often thinking about the consequences of what they say. Over time, memories tend to fade, and biases may creep into a witness’ thought process. Thus, there is an argument to be made that statements made in the immediate aftermath of an accident are the most reliable. In fact, it is not uncommon for a witness’ testimony at trial to differ from the statement they provided to police in the moments after an accident.Normally, hearsay evidence is prohibited during a trial. Hearsay evidence is an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove what the statement says. For example, a witness’ statement to police describing how an accident occurred is generally considered inadmissible hearsay. The proper way to get this testimony in would be to call the witness to testify at trial. But what happens when a witness’ testimony changes from the time of the accident to trial?

The Florida Rules of Evidence address this very issue in Rule 90.614. Under Rule 90.614, a party is entitled to cross-examine a witness regarding any prior inconsistent statements they made. Rule 90.614 acts as an exception to the general prohibition on hearsay. Thus, if a witness takes the stand and testifies to something different from what they told police in an accident report, that witness can be questioned about the inconsistency. A recent car accident case illustrates this concept.

Jury Rejects Plaintiff’s Expert Witness’ Testimony in Recent Florida Car Accident Case

Published on: January 2, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued an opinion in a Florida car accident case requiring the court to determine if a jury was within its right to refuse to award future medical expenses to the plaintiff when the defendant failed to provide contradicting expert testimony. Ultimately, since the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony was “far-from-conclusive,” the court determined that the jury was free to make the decision it did.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in a Florida car accident that was caused by another driver. The at-fault driver either did not have insurance or had insufficient insurance to cover the plaintiff’s injuries, so the plaintiff filed an underinsured/uninsured motorist claim with her own insurance company. The extent of the plaintiff’s injuries were not conclusively established, but it was determined by her neurosurgeon that she suffered from degenerative disc disease.

The insurance company did not contest that the other driver caused the accident, but it claimed that the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the accident. In support of its position, the insurance company attempted to present three expert witnesses. However, the court prevented the jury from considering the experts’ testimony.

Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Medical Malpractice Case Against Pharmacy Following Medication Error

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

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued an opinion in a personal injury case that discusses principles that often arise in Florida medical malpractice cases and other personal injury cases. The case required the court to determine if the plaintiff’s evidence gave rise to a case of medical malpractice against the defendant pharmacist in the wake of a medication error. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s testimony failed to establish that the pharmacy violated any professional duty of care, and thus the medical malpractice claim was dismissed.The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff suffered from serious medical issues requiring that he take certain medication. One day, the plaintiff’s wife went to pick up her husband’s prescription from the defendant pharmacy. The plaintiff’s wife was provided a single bag with two bottles inside. Neither bottle had the plaintiff’s name on it, and neither contained the proper medication.

The plaintiff’s wife, not noticing the error, gave the medication to her husband. Later that evening, she found the plaintiff on the floor near the front door to their home. The plaintiff’s wife did not notice anything that could have caused her husband to trip, and she concluded that he fell on his own. The pharmacy error was later discovered, and the couple subsequently filed a personal injury case.

Court Reverses Jury’s Verdict Based on Lack of Evidence Showing the Defendant Knew about Hazard that Caused Plaintiff’s Fall

Published on: November 27, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a Florida premises liability lawsuit requiring the court to determine if the lower court was proper to deny the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence showing the defendant knew about the hazard that caused her fall.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a patron at a BBQ stand that was located on property owned by a sports club. After dining, the plaintiff slipped and fell on a public sidewalk near the stand. She sustained serious injuries in the fall and filed a premises liability case against both the sports club as well as the county that maintained the sidewalk.

The plaintiff claimed that the sports club was negligent in failing to clean a grease trap, resulting in grease spilling onto the sidewalk. The plaintiff claimed that the county was negligent in failing to clean up the grease on the public sidewalk. The case went to trial, and a jury determined that the sports club and the county were each 50% liable for the plaintiff’s injuries and that the plaintiff was 0% at fault.

Florida Supreme Court Interprets “Amendment 7” To Provide Broad Right of Access to Medical Records

Published on: November 16, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Back in 2004, Florida citizens amended the Florida Constitution to include a “right to have access to any records made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or provider relating to any adverse medical incident.” This amendment became known as Amendment 7. In a recent Florida medical malpractice case, the state’s Supreme Court issued an opinion discussing the breadth of the amendment and whether common-law privileges held by medical providers can override the reach of Amendment 7.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure that was conducted by the defendant doctor. During the procedure, the plaintiff’s bile duct was severed. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, claiming that the doctor was negligent in performing the surgery. The plaintiff also named the medical center where the procedure was performed as a defendant.

During pre-trial discovery, the plaintiff requested certain documents from the defendant, including records of other adverse medical events that occurred at the defendant medical center. The defendants objected to the plaintiff’s request for discovery, claiming that several privileges attached to the documents and that therefore they were not subject to the rules of discovery.

Can a Judge Override a Jury’s Verdict in a Florida Personal Injury Case?

Published on: November 6, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In most Florida personal injury cases, the judge’s role is to determine which evidence is admissible at trial, rule on any objections that are made during the course of the trial, and ultimately instruct the jury on the relevant law after the parties have rested. Judges also are responsible for hearing any post-trial motions and ruling on these motions.In most cases, once a jury returns a verdict in a Florida personal injury case, that decision is final. However, there are a few exceptions to that general rule. First, either party may be able to appeal a legal decision made by the judge during the course of the trial. For example, if one party believes that the court unfairly kept evidence from the jury’s consideration, they may appeal that ruling to a higher court.

Another example of this is when the trial judge determines that the jury’s verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence. This is usually argued in a post-trial motion brought by the side that did not prevail at trial, arguing that the jury was wrong in its determination based on the evidence presented. In order to succeed in this type of claim, a party must show that the jury based its decision on evidence that did not exist or was not admitted. A recent case illustrates the courts’ general reluctance to override a jury’s verdict.

Plaintiff Injured by Fallen Tree Permitted to Proceed with Case Against Property Owner

Published on: October 9, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a premises liability lawsuit brought by a woman who was injured when a fallen tree struck her in the apartment complex where she lived. The case presented the court with the opportunity to determine whether the plaintiff’s case was sufficient as a matter of law and should therefore survive the summary judgment challenge filed by the defendants. This case is helpful for South Florida premises liability plaintiffs because it clearly illustrates the elements of a premises liability lawsuit.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a tenant at the defendants’ apartment complex. One day, during a particularly heavy storm, a tree on an adjacent piece of property was knocked over. As the tree fell, it got caught on the gutter of the apartment building where the plaintiff lived.

The tree remained suspended from the apartment building for some time. The plaintiff reached out to the defendants, asking them to remove the tree, but no action was taken. Ultimately, the plaintiff contacted a fellow resident she knew to also work as a part-time maintenance worker for the defendants.

Nursing Home Claims Privilege in Face of Plaintiff’s Discovery Request

Published on: October 5, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When a South Florida nursing home abuse or neglect case is filed, the parties must exchange certain requested materials before the case is scheduled for trial. This is called the pre-trial discovery process, and it is an opportunity for both sides to learn a little more about the other’s case.In most South Florida personal injury or wrongful death cases filed against a nursing home, the plaintiff will request not just information that he believes will be helpful to his case but also information that could potentially be harmful to his case. The idea is to be prepared for what lies ahead at trial. A recent case illustrates the tactics that some nursing home defendants will attempt in order to prevent the plaintiff from obtaining certain material.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the father of a mentally ill man who was a resident at the defendant nursing home. While the plaintiff’s son was a resident of the home, he was attacked by another resident with a blunt object and subsequently died from the injuries he sustained in the attack.

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.

Pre-Suit Requirements in Florida Personal Injury Cases Naming Government Defendants

Published on: September 7, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When someone is injured due to the negligence of a Florida government employee or entity, they may be entitled to monetary compensation through a Florida personal injury lawsuit. However, lawsuits that are filed against government defendants in Florida have certain additional requirements that must be met, or the accident victim risks the court dismissing their case before it is heard.In Florida, accident victims must file a pre-suit notice to the government agency that they are naming as a defendant. According to Florida Statutes section 768.28, state and local governments in Florida must be served with a pre-suit notice of a claim within three years of the accident. This notice must contain information about the accident, such as where it occurred, who was involved, the alleged acts of negligence, and what is being requested. If a pre-suit notice is not filed or is insufficient, a court may dismiss any subsequent lawsuit. A recent appellate court opinion out of Georgia details one plaintiff’s experience with an inaccurately drafted pre-suit notice.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured when he stepped in an uncovered manhole while walking on a paved street in the defendant city. Initially, the plaintiff reported the hazard to the police department and provided the department with the address of 425 Chappell Road. The plaintiff explained to the police that the uncovered manhole was at the intersection of Chappell Road and Mayson Turner Road.