Third-Party Liability

How the Jones Act May Help Injured Seamen Recover for Work-Related Injuries

Published on: February 4, 2019 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When someone is injured in a Florida workplace accident, compensation may be available through several sources. One option for the injured employee is to apply for Florida workers’ compensation benefits. One good thing about workers’ compensation benefits is that an employee can obtain benefits without a showing of fault. However, these benefits are limited in that an employee can only recover economic damages. This means an employee is not able to obtain compensation for their emotional pain and suffering.

Another option for those who have been injured in a Florida workplace accident is to pursue a personal injury claim against their employer. However, as a general rule, an injured employee’s sole remedy against their employer is a workers’ compensation claim. Thus, many employees are foreclosed from pursuing a Florida personal injury claim against their employer.

That is not the case, however, for maritime workers. Under the Jones Act, those seamen who are injured or killed in the course of their employment may be able to pursue a claim against their employer. (Note: Florida railroad workers enjoy a similar benefit under the Federal Employment Liability Act.) It is important to note, however, that an employee who brings a claim under the Jones Act must establish that their employer was negligent. As a recent case illustrates, the duties that a maritime employer owes to its employees may be unfamiliar to those without advanced knowledge of the industry.

Employer Liability in Florida Trucking Accidents

Published on: January 31, 2019 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Determining which parties to name as defendants in a Florida trucking accident is a crucial decision that must be made early on in the process. Of course, an obvious choice is to name the driver of the truck involved in the accident. However, Florida truck accident victims would be wise to consider whether additional parties may also be liable for their injuries.

As a general rule, employers are vicariously liable for the negligent actions of their employees so long as, at the time of the accident, the employee was acting within the scope of their employment. However, this only applies when the truck driver and the trucking company have an employee/employer relationship. If the truck driver is an independent contractor, the contracting company will likely not be held liable for the driver’s actions. Thus, the determination of whether a truck driver is an employee or a contractor commonly comes up in Florida truck accident cases.

A recent state appellate decision illustrates how courts analyze claims against trucking companies.

Court Permits Car Accident Plaintiff to Proceed with Both Respondeat Superior and Negligent Entrustment Theory

Published on: October 25, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing whether a plaintiff could pursue a respondeat superior claim as well as a negligent entrustment claim against an employer based on an employee’s negligent conduct. The case is important to Florida car accident victims because it elucidates the differences between two common claims that are often believed to be identical but are, in fact, different.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s recitation of the facts, the plaintiff was riding a motorcycle when he was struck by a truck that made an improper left turn in front of the plaintiff. The plaintiff died as a result of the collision. The truck driver was later found to have been under the influence of a prescription narcotic that was banned by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

The plaintiff filed a multi-claim wrongful death case against the truck driver’s employer. The plaintiff claimed that the employer was liable for the truck driver’s negligence under the theory of vicarious liability. In addition, the plaintiff contended that the employer was liable under the doctrine of negligent entrustment.

Court Discusses Personal Injury Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Burden at the Summary Judgement Stage

Published on: October 18, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When a plaintiff files a Florida personal injury case, in many instances the defendant will file a motion for summary judgment claiming that the plaintiff’s case is insufficient as a matter of law. Essentially, in a summary judgment motion, the defendant argues that there are no disputed factual issues in the case and that when the court applies the law, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Thus, to survive a defense motion for summary judgment, a Florida personal injury plaintiff must be able to establish a disputed issue of fact. In a recent personal injury case, the court discussed the plaintiff’s burden to present evidence creating an issue of fact, as opposed to merely calling into question the credibility of a witness’ testimony.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was injured in a car accident. The motorist who struck the plaintiff’s car (“the supervisor”) was on the phone at the time of the accident, speaking to a woman whom she supervises at work (“the employee”). The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the supervisor’s employer, arguing that the employer was vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the supervisor.

Florida Personal Injury Victims and the Importance of Being Careful When Settling a Case

Published on: October 4, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The recovery period following a serious Florida car accident is different for everyone, but it is not an easy time for anyone. Aside from the physical trauma and emotional disturbance caused by the accident, there are the mounting medical bills, the time away from work, and the headache of dealing with insurance companies. Given these issues, it is understandable and expected that most victims of a Florida car accident are quite vulnerable for some time after the accident.

Sadly, insurance companies and savvy defense attorneys often use this time of vulnerability to approach and pressure accident victims into discussing – and potentially settling – their case. It is common to see Florida accident victims sign away the rights to pursue their case for just pennies on the dollar.

Even when the settlement agreement is a fair one, Florida car accident victims should consult with a knowledgeable attorney about the agreement’s fine print. Some settlement agreements contain unexpected language or are phrased in very broad terms that could cause problems for the accident victim if they choose to pursue a claim against other parties. A case that arose recently serves as a warning and excellent example of why it is essential to carefully read and negotiate the terms of a settlement agreement.

Appellate Court Determines Condominium Association Is Not a Landlord in Recent Premises Liability Case

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

Florida premises liability lawsuits often hinge on the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. This is because any duty that a landowner may owe to a plaintiff depends on the relationship between the parties and the reason why the plaintiff is on the defendant’s property. A recent appellate decision from nearby Georgia illustrates how a plaintiff’s inability to prove that a certain relationship exists between herself and the defendants may be fatal to her claim.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff rented a condo in the defendant’s condominium complex from the condo’s owner. However, the plaintiff did not enter into a formal written lease with the owner of the condo. Instead, the two had an oral agreement.

While the plaintiff was living in the condo, she was bothered by the fact that the staircase leading up to her unit was poorly lit and did not have a handrail. She informed the condominium association that she believed the condition of the stairs was dangerous and requested that the association take action to make the stairs safer. However, the association did nothing.

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.

Employer’s Failure to Conduct Thorough Background Investigation May Be Basis for Liability in Employee’s DUI Accident

Published on: February 22, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, a state appellate court considered whether a company could be held liable after an employee caused an accident in a company car while driving drunk. According to the facts as laid out in the court’s opinion, the employee received permission to use a company car on a weekend to move a mattress into a new home, even though this was a violation of company policy. The employee drank several alcoholic drinks on the day he borrowed the car and then collided with the plaintiff’s car.The plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the employee and also brought a claim against the company for negligent entrustment. A trial court first heard the case and granted summary judgment to the company on the negligent entrustment claim. It concluded the employer did not know the employee had a pattern of reckless driving, since the employer only knew the employee had one prior DUI conviction and was not aware he had additional DUI convictions.

The plaintiff appealed the decision. He argued summary judgment was improper because the court should have considered whether the company had a duty to investigate the employee’s driving background more thoroughly. The appeals court agreed. It noted that when the company hired the employee, he listed a 1990 conviction for possession of cocaine, but he omitted multiple prior DUI convictions. However, the employee said he told the company about his history of drugs and alcohol, and he also told the company his license was reinstated in 2010 after it was suspended for a DUI conviction. The company did a background investigation of the employee before hiring him. The investigation showed a clean driving history, but it only showed infractions for the previous three years, and his federal criminal history did not show any convictions.

Appellate Court Rejects $885,000 Verdict Against Educational Institution in Auto-Pedestrian Accident Case

Published on: October 19, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The California Court of Appeals recently published an opinion reversing a jury’s verdict in favor of a 14-year-old boy who was injured in a 2012 auto-pedestrian accident involving an instructor employed by the defendant who was driving home from work when the accident occurred. The lawsuit, which was originally filed against both the driver and his employer, alleged that the employer was liable for the injuries caused by the driver because he was acting within the course of his employment when the crash occurred. Although the verdict against the employer was reversed, the pretrial settlement that the plaintiff reached with the driver of the vehicle will remain in effect to help compensate him for the injuries that were suffered in the crash.

Teen Plaintiff Is Struck by Culinary Instructor as He Returns From Work

The plaintiff in the case of Jorge v. Culinary Institute of America was a boy who was 14 years old when he was struck by a vehicle while walking with his girlfriend and suffered serious injuries. The driver of the car that hit the boy was employed as an instructor at a culinary institute that was operated by the defendant, and he was returning to his home after his workday when he injured the plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed an auto-pedestrian accident claim against both the driver and his employer, arguing that the driver was returning from work “in service of the employer” when the accident occurred. After the jury found that the driver was negligent in causing the accident, his auto insurance company negotiated a $30,000 settlement with the plaintiff before the jury determined the total amount of damages to which the teen was entitled. After the partial settlement was reached, the Culinary Institute was the only remaining defendant in the case and was unable to have the claim against them dismissed.

State Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Plaintiff in Dram Shop DUI Wrongful Death Case

Published on: May 9, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Massachusetts recently released an opinion affirming a district court’s ruling that a plaintiffs’ lawsuit against a restaurant regarding the DUI-related death of their family member could proceed. The defendant had argued that the plaintiffs submitted an insufficient affidavit to make a claim against a provider of alcoholic beverages, but both courts disagreed with the defendant’s arguments, and the case will continue to be heard.

Plaintiffs’ Family Member Dies after Allegedly Being Served an Excessive Amount of Alcohol by the Defendant

According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, their family member died in a single-car DUI accident after he had spent hours at a restaurant and bar operated by the defendant. The plaintiffs claim that an employee of the defendant repeatedly served the driver alcoholic beverages, knowing that he was extremely intoxicated and that he would be driving home. The claim, made under a state law known as the Dram Shop Act, is allowed against third parties who knowingly serve alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron who later causes an injury or death while driving drunk. Several states have various forms of dram shop laws, which have been enacted to discourage dangerous serving practices at restaurants and bars across the country.

The Defendant’s Request to Dismiss the Case Is Rejected

Once the plaintiffs’ case was filed, the defendants asked the court to dismiss it, arguing that an affidavit attached to a Dram Shop Act claim must be based on personal knowledge rather than simply information and belief. Both the district court and the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that an affidavit based on knowledge and belief is sufficient to prevent the claim from being dismissed, and any irregularities or discrepancies in the facts can be decided by a judge or jury at a later point in the case. Based on the rulings, the plaintiffs’ claim will be allowed to proceed toward a trial or settlement.