South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

One Killed One Injured in Fatal Florida Truck Collision

Published on: March 15, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

It is vital to take basic steps to protect yourself when you are driving. One simple thing you can do every time you drive is to ensure that you are wearing your seatbelt, especially when you’re in the front of the car. Seatbelts significantly decrease the risk of fetal injuries in the event of a crash, while forgoing a seatbelt while in a car can increase your risk of death in a car accident by as high as 45%. Thousands of drivers in Florida experience severe or fatal accidents annually due to their failure to wear seatbelts.

The danger of not wearing your seatbelt is compounded when a truck or other large vehicle is involved in the crash. Large commercial vehicles like trucks are on the road to transport heavy items over long distances. That means that trucks can become difficult to maneuver in emergency situations, preventing truck drivers from turning or stopping suddenly due to the weight of their vehicle and cargo. Additionally, truck drivers are under extreme pressure to spend long hours on the road, as they need to meet delivery deadlines. This can lead to exhaustion and impaired judgment on the roads. Tired drivers are more likely to make mistakes when driving, increasing the likelihood of accidents. A recent news article discussed a fatal Florida car and truck accident.

According to the news article, the accident occurred when a fully loaded semi-truck collided with a passenger vehicle in an Ocala intersection on Wednesday, February 22. Ocala Police officers responded to the crash. A witness stated that the semi-truck had a red light when it started blasting its air horn and proceeded into the intersection. The passenger vehicle had already begun to cross when the semi-truck tried to avoid a collision. The front of the semi-truck struck the car door and pushed it sideways into the median. According to authorities, the female driver of the passenger vehicle was trauma-alerted to a local hospital, where she passed away from her injuries.

One Dead in Fatal Semi-Truck Underride Collision in Florida

Published on: March 10, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Truck underride collisions are one of the deadliest types of automobile accidents on the road today. According to a report from Crash Forensics, truck underride collisions represent approximately one-quarter of the fatalities in accidents involving trucks. Due to the nature of underride accidents, even slow-speed collisions can be fatal for passenger-vehicle occupants. Truck underride collisions occur when a passenger vehicle crashes into a semi-truck trailer or a straight truck, resulting in the passenger vehicle running under the truck or trailer. Crashes, where the passenger vehicle passes under the truck or trailer, can often result in the car roof being sheared off, sometimes with fatal results. A recently published news article described such a crash in St. Johns County, Florida.

According to the news article, an 84-year-old man from St. Johns was killed Tuesday morning in an underride collision with a semi-truck and trailer. The accident occurred early in the morning of Tuesday, February 21, around 6:30 am. The crash happened on U.S. 1 at Pine Island Road, according to the Florida Highway Patrol, leaving all southbound lanes blocked on U.S. 1 for hours. According to the Florida Highway Patrol report, the man’s car drove under the side of a semi that was heading across the southbound lanes of US 1, attempting to cross the center median break to turn left onto northbound US 1. The car driver died at the scene, and the 26-year-old truck operator was unhurt. According to the report, both drivers were wearing their seatbelts.

Comparative negligence is the legal concept that parties in an accident are assigned the percentage of fault that they were responsible for in the accident. Under the pure comparative negligence theory, an accident victim can recover money from an equally or less negligent party. Under Florida law, accident victims can recover compensation from the other party, even if the victim is partially at fault, including fault that exceeds 51%. In practice, this means that even if the victim is found to be mostly at fault for an accident during a trial, they can still seek compensation for personal damages from the other party. If the claim is successful, the total damages awarded will be reduced by the victim’s percentage of fault. Although establishing fault in a car accident may seem straightforward, many factors could impact a victim’s recovery. An attorney can help accident victims at all stages of the claims process, including helping to gather evidence, leading settlement negotiations, litigating, and appealing.

Florida Appeals Court Dismisses Pro Se Medical Negligence Case Due to Statute of Limitation Issue

Published on: March 10, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Florida issued an opinion in an appeal involving a medical negligence complaint between a pro se appellant, the plaintiff, and the appellee, South Lake Hospital, Inc. (South Lake). The plaintiff later amended her complaint to include two employees of South Lake. The plaintiff filed a pro se complaint for negligence against South Lake following a car accident she experienced in 2016 and a subsequent misdiagnosis of injury by the South Lake emergency room staff. The trial court made a final order dismissing with prejudice the plaintiff’s amended complaint for damages against South Lake

On March 27, 2016, the plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident that resulted in excruciating back pain and visible bruising on the left side of her chest. She was transported from the site of the accident to South Lake’s emergency room. The plaintiff would later allege that in the emergency room, after around two hours, she was discharged after being told that her pain was due to arthritis. The plaintiff then sought medical treatment three days later at a different medical facility, where according to her, it was discovered that she had sustained numerous fractures in her back.

In February 2020, the plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against South Lake. South Lake moved to dismiss the complaint, and following a hearing on the motion, the plaintiff was given leave by the court to file an amended complaint. In December 2021, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding an emergency medicine physician and a diagnostic radiologist as parties to the suit, asserting that both were employed by South Lake “when the negligence occurred.” Following a brief, the trial court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s actions “based upon expiration of the statute of limitations.”

Appellate Court Decides Not to Invoke Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine

Published on: February 28, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent opinion from the Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida, a plaintiff appealed his claims after he was denied damages in a suit relating to his sustained injuries from a heavy object being dropped onto his foot. The plaintiff attempted to hold Sunbelt, the loader’s owner, directly liable for his injuries. The complaint alleged that Sunbelt should be held liable for its negligent failure to require that the operators of its loaders be properly trained and should be vicariously liable for the defendant’s alleged negligent operation of the loader under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The trial court sided against the plaintiff, which led the plaintiff to appeal.

In this case, the defendant is a licensed contractor who was hired for a clean-up job on private property. The plaintiff accompanied the defendant to the clean-up site and assisted the defendant with cleaning the debris. There were ramps placed inside a bucket attachment that the defendant brought to the cleanup site. After all of the debris was collected, the defendant directed the plaintiff to retrieve the ramps so that the defendant could drive the loader back onto the trailer. The defendant picked up the bucket attachment using the loader’s grapple and drove the loaders toward the trailer. The loader came to a complete stop, and the plaintiff approached the loader on foot and reached into the bucket attachment to retrieve the ramps from within the bucket. While doing so, the loader lurched forward unexpectedly, slipped from his grip, fell on his foot, and amputated two of his toes.

Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes strict vicarious liability on the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes harm to another. Under this doctrine, an owner who entrusts another to operate the motor vehicle has an obligation to ensure that the vehicle is operated safely. There is an exception to the doctrine, where the person entrusted with the vehicle injures another while both persons are using the vehicle. If this exception applies, the vehicle’s owner cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligent operation of the vehicle. The exception applies when the individuals are “jointly operating and controlling the movement of the vehicle with common purpose and community interest of enterprise, with equal right to control and direct the conduct of each other.”

Florida Nursing Home Administrator on Trial After Nine Deaths

Published on: February 28, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

According to a recent report, a Florida nursing home administrator was charged with causing the overheating deaths of nine patients after Hurricane Irma in 2017. The deaths began occurring three days after Hurricane Irma knocked out a transformer that powered the cooling system. The victims ranged in age from 57 to 99 and had body temperatures of up to 108 degrees. The trial for this case started recently, and the prosecutor alleges that the administrator failed to give adequate direction to his staff after power to the facility’s air conditioning system was lost. It is alleged that the administrator failed to order the evacuation of patients to a hospital across the street that had working air conditioning.

In order for the administrator to be found guilty of manslaughter, Florida law requires that prosecutors prove that the administrator acted recklessly, and showed gross and careless disregard for his patients’ safety. The administrator could face 15 years in prison if convicted. The administrator was originally charged with 12 deaths, but three of the cases were dropped. Three employees who were previously charged but had their charges dropped will be testifying against the administrator during the trial. According to allegations, the administrator directed his staff to buy fans and had portable AC units installed, but instead of making the temperatures better, it made the temperatures on the second floor where the death occurred worse.

The defense attorney has argued that the administrator did everything in his power to protect his patients, including having staff notify Florida Power & Light about the situation immediately after the power went down, and updating the company several times over the next two days. According to the defense counsel, the power company did not send a crew until there were news reports about patients dying. The problem ultimately took 10 minutes to fix. According to a state report, before the storm hit, the administrator and his staff began to prepare by purchasing extra food and water and fuel for the generator. Additionally, once the air conditioner failed, the administrator and staff called the power company, but no one came to help. They then proceeded to call the then-Governoer Rick Scott’s cellphone and city officials, which still did not turn up any results.

Eight People Hurt in Florida Slow-Moving Vehicle Crash

Published on: February 21, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Although contemporary cars are manufactured based on strict safety standards, accidents due to mechanical failure or malfunction can still cause major or fatal injuries. While it is always important to maintain all parts of your motor vehicle, certain mechanical failures are more common than others. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, brakes are responsible for 22% of car accidents due to mechanical failure. There are several different ways that car brakes can contribute to accidents, including faulty or worn brake lines, antilock brake system malfunctions, or worn-out brake pads and discs. Each of these malfunctions or failures compromises brake performance in different ways but has the potential to result in serious automobile crashes. A recently published news report discusses a crash at a Florida auto show.

According to the news report, the accident happened around 9:30 am on Wednesday, February 15, when a “slow-moving” vehicle crashed into the crowd at the Lauderdale Lakes Auto Auction lot. The collision occurred at the South Florida Auto Auction lot at 3500 NW 21 Street when a car began moving through the crowd as an auction was in progress, injuring eight people. According to the law enforcement report, investigators determined that the brakes of the vehicle failed as it was being moved. Officials said that of the eight victims, five were hospitalized with minor injuries, while one refused transportation to the hospital. Nobody died in the crash.

It would serve Florida drivers and passengers well to know what factors can be used when calculating pain and suffering damages following a car accident. These factors include things such as recovery time, the severity of the injury, pain level, type of injury, and magnitude of the crash. These elements are weighed together to help deduce what the appropriate level of compensation should be granted in court following an automobile crash. When it comes to considering evidence and the factors of a lawsuit in a case where the accident was caused by defective or faulty brakes, it can make a lot of sense to speak with an experienced personal injury trial lawyer to learn about the type of evidence needed to prove a claim and how most insurance companies respond to these claims.

Two Killed in Florida Highway On-Ramp Crash

Published on: February 21, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Speeding is one of the top causes of automobile accidents throughout the nation. Driving at high speeds increases both the likelihood and the severity of car crashes. Driving at higher speeds makes it more difficult to react to mistakes on the road from yourself or other drivers. Additionally, higher speeds lead to more serious crashes when drivers do collide with other vehicles or obstacles. Florida is no exception, with the state experiencing extremely high levels of car accidents and auto fatalities. According to a report from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FDHSMV), in 2021, car accidents spiked throughout Florida after two straight years of decline. Throughout 2021, Florida saw 401,170 total car accidents. Additionally, approximately 40% of car accidents in Florida result in fatalities. According to the FDHSMV, fatal car accidents have been on the rise throughout Florida. A recently published news article discusses a fatal single-car crash in Miami-Dade County.

According to the news report, the accident occurred around 5:30 am on Wednesday, February 15, when a white Mercedes-Benz coupe was traveling on the entrance ramp from southbound Northwest 42nd Avenue to the Dolphin Expressway when the driver lost control while negotiating the curve of the ramp. The car then crashed into the guardrail and into the concrete barrier walls. According to the Florida Highway Patrol, the driver was transported to Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Ryder Trauma Center, where he died. The person sitting in the front passenger seat was pronounced dead at the scene.

In Florida, surviving family members can sue for wrongful death following a fatal car accident by filing a lawsuit in a civil court. Prior to filing a claim, the family members need to gather evidence to support the claim, prove liability, determine the value of their claim, meet the statute of limitations, and then file the claim with the court. According to Florida statutes, a wrongful death claim brought by surviving family members of a car passenger can result from accidents where the death is caused by “the wrongful act, negligence, default, or breach of contract” of another party. An attorney can evaluate the details of your case and determine if you are eligible to file a wrongful death claim based on the details of the case.

Florida Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court Decision in Worker Compensation Case

Published on: February 15, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, the First District Court of Appeals in Florida issued an opinion in an appeal involving a claim for authorization of a physician in a worker compensation case between an employee, the Claimant, and the Employer/Carrier (E/C). The Claimant sued the E/C following the E/C disregarding his request for a one-time change under section 440.13(2)(f). The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC), denied his claim for authorization of the physician and found that the E/C’s waiver defense was tried by consent.

The Claimant suffered a compensable accident on August 21, 2018, and benefits were subsequently initiated. On June 20, 2019, the Claimant sent a written request to the E/C exercising his right to a one-time change under section 440.13(2)(f), and the E/C failed to respond. On July 2, 2019, the Claimant filed a Petition for Benefits (PFB), asserting his entitlement to the one-time change and requesting enforcement of that right. The E/C filed a response agreeing to the one-time change and naming Dr. Feiertag as the alternative physician twenty-seven days after the Claimant filed the first PFB. The Claimant did not attend the appointment and subsequently voluntarily dismissed the first PFB, later explaining that he was concerned with avoiding litigation and “rocking the boat” with his employer. On July 28, 2020, the Claimant filed a second PFB requesting authorization, payment, and scheduling of an appointment for evaluation and treatment with Dr. Roush, his chosen alternative physician. Three days after the second PFB, the E/C wrote to the Claimant, denying treatment with Dr. Roush, stating that Dr. Feiertag was the authorized one-time change doctor.

At trial, the Claimant argued that the E/C forfeited its right of selection of the one-time change physician when it failed to respond to his initial one-time change request. He further claimed that the second PFB was merely a requested enforcement of his previously accrued right of selection, and he was exercising that by selecting Dr. Roush. The E/C argued that the Claimant voluntarily dismissed the first PFB and waived his right of selection. The JCC concluded that due to the fact that the Claimant did not attend the appointment with Dr. Feiertag that was scheduled by the E/C, he did not acquiesce to his authorization. Additionally, the JCC rejected the E/C’s argument that the Claimant forfeited his right of selection due to the length of time between the written request and the selection of the doctor. Regardless, the JCC denied the Claimant’s request, finding that (1) the Claimant withdrew his request, (2) the second PFB was a new request that the E/C responded to in a timely manner, and (3) the Claimant failed to satisfy his burden of proof that the treatment he was seeking reimbursement for was both “compensable” and “medically necessary.”

Former NFL Player Facing DUI Charges After South Florida Crash

Published on: February 15, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

According to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (AAAFTS), 13.5% of people reported driving at least once in the past year when they thought their alcohol levels might have been close to or possibly over the legal limit. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that in 2020, 11,654 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic deaths, which was a 14% increase from 2019. According to the NHTSA, 32 people in the United States die every day in drunk-driving crashes. A recently published news report discusses a former NFL player facing DUI charges in Florida following an accident.

According to the news report, the accident occurred early on Saturday, February 4, when former NFL player Vontae Davis rear-ended a pick-up truck that was on the side of the highway due to a flat tire, injuring the truck’s driver, who had been standing outside of the vehicle. According to law enforcement officers, Davis lost control of his vehicle while driving, resulting in a collision with the parked pick-up truck on the side of the turnpike. The impact sent the pick-up truck spinning into a concrete barrier, striking the driver who had been waiting outside. The driver was then taken to a hospital with multiple injuries. According to law enforcement officers, Davis smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech and bloodshot eyes, and could barely stay awake while being interviewed by a trooper after the accident. Davis refused to provide a blood or urine sample and wouldn’t agree to perform a field sobriety test, according to the law enforcement report. Davis told the trooper interviewing him that he had consumed two drinks at a club.

In Florida, a first-time DUI offense is usually considered a misdemeanor. Generally, the person charged will have their license suspended for six months, with the penalty increasing to one year if they refused to submit to chemical testing when they were stopped. In Florida, first offenses carry a fine ranging from $500 to $1,000 and carry a maximum jail sentence of six months. Additionally, judges in Florida are required to place people convicted of their first DUI on probation and order them to complete at least 50 hours of community service.

Florida Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court Decision in Wrongful Death Case

Published on: February 8, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Florida issued an opinion in an appeal involving a wrongful death complaint between the Appellee, the plaintiff who is a personal representative of the decedent’s estate, and the Appellants, Cleveland Clinic Florida Health System (Cleveland Clinic). The plaintiff sued Cleveland Clinic for wrongful death after the decedent was admitted to the hospital through the emergency room, and healthcare providers performed an intubation action that caused fatal brain injuries. The trial court made a non-final order granting the appellee’s motion to amend a wrongful death medical malpractice complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages.

The decedent was admitted to the hospital through the emergency room. When his condition deteriorated, healthcare providers performed an intubation action that caused fatal brain injuries. To support their claims, the appellee relied on comments purportedly made by the hospital’s chief medical officer following the decedent’s death and arguments related to the appellants’ general failure to follow current policy procedures, make changes to their policies, and use the incident as a teaching opportunity for its interns, residents, and fellows. At trial, the court ruled that proffered evidence showed the doctors and other health care providers were grossly negligent by, contrary to the emergency room physician’s recommendation, placing the decedent on a floor level with fewer observation checks, failing to attend to the decedent during the various emergency calls, and beginning intubation without proper supervision, causing the delayed intubation that led to the decedent’s death. To support the punitive damages claim against the hospital, the trial court found a jury could conclude that the hospital’s response to the incident reflects its “condonement and ratification of the provider’s gross negligence.”

On appeal, the Cleveland Clinic argues that the trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiff made a “reasonable showing” under section 768.72 to recover punitive damages. The appellate court reverses the lower court decision for two reasons. First, the appeals court found that the proffered evidence at the hearing failed to show that the healthcare providers involved were grossly negligent. Second, neither the complaint nor the proffered evidence demonstrated how the appellants’ actions either before or during the decedent’s treatment ratified or approved the healthcare providers’ alleged negligent conduct. The appellate decision stated that “appellee’s proffered evidence provided no reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages, which are reserved ‘to express society’s collective outrage.’” Further, the opinion states that even assuming the proffered evidence demonstrated gross negligence by the health care providers, the trial court erred in finding that a jury could reasonably conclude that the appellants ratified or condoned that negligence to subject it to punitive damages. The appeals court points out that the trial court relied on conduct that post-dated the treatment of the decedent and that such actions are not admissible on the issue of punitive damages. Subsequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court order.