South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Recovering from a Florida Chain Reaction Car Accident

Published on: December 24, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The holiday season is always chaotic—and this year is no exception. With more cars on the road and more people rushing from place to place to get last-minute gifts or supplies for their holiday gatherings, the roads can often be a frustrating and dangerous place to be this time of year. Thus, if you find yourself suddenly caught in a multiple vehicle, chain reaction accident—whether it’s this time of year or any other time of year—it is crucial to remain level-headed and prepared for your next steps, no matter how chaotic the situation may seem.

According to a recent local news report, 11 people were injured following a major chain reaction car accident. Based on a preliminary investigation of the accident, a major set of collisions involving approximately 35 vehicles and multiple semi-trucks over the course of half a mile shut down multiple lanes for several hours. Although no fatalities have been reported, two of the 11 people injured had to be pulled from their vehicles, and everyone who was injured was transported to a local hospital for treatment. Local authorities are still investigating the details of the accident.

Chain reaction accidents take place when one event causes an initial car accident, which leads to other vehicles in the vicinity of the initial accident to also collide with each other. In most chain reaction car accidents, the driver who caused the initial crash is usually the at-fault party. This, however, can change based on the circumstances and facts surrounding an accident.

Florida Car Accident Leaves Two Dead and Four Injured

Published on: December 17, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

With more people traveling for the holidays this time of year, the risk of an accident taking place is often also higher. Sometimes, no matter how careful of a driver you are, it is impossible to account for all possible scenarios or circumstances because others may be negligent or reckless on the road. Thus, in the event of an accident, it is crucial to know how to best protect yourself and what steps to take moving forward if you decide to pursue legal action after a car collision.

According to a recent local news report, Florida Highway Patrol troopers arrested a driver after a major accident. Local authorities reported that a Chevy was traveling northbound when it went around a semi-tractor and slid into the right lane to do so. While in the right lane, the Chevy collided with the back of a Kia. The impact from the crash split the Kia’s left rear and side open as the car veered off the roadway and onto the right shoulder before flipping upside down. The KIA then slid into a grassy area near the road, where four passengers who were in the back of the vehicle were ejected. The driver and his front-seat passenger survived the crash and were treated for minor injuries, while two of the passengers in the back were pronounced dead at the scene and the other two passengers were severely injured.

The crash was so severe that fire officials had to extricate the driver and front-seat passenger from the wreckage. According to troopers, evidence from the accident indicates that this was a high-speed crash, with the Chevy driving much faster than the speed limit. In addition, the driver refused to participate in a field sobriety test, and troopers believe that the crash was alcohol-related. The accident remains under investigation.

Injuries to Florida Veterans and Service Members

Published on: December 17, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Under Florida law, wrongful death refers to situations where a person’s negligence causes the death. After a successful lawsuit, the court may order the at-fault party to pay damages to the decedent’s close relatives. Damages typically include:

Compensation for the survivor’s pain and suffering.
Loss of companionship.

Jury Finds Pharmacies Liable for Public Nuisance in Contributing to the Opioid Epidemic

Published on: December 10, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In recent decades, the irresponsible prescription and distribution of opioid pain medications has resulted in tens of thousands of overdose deaths and immense harm to families and individuals from the harmful effects of the addictive drugs. Recent lawsuits filed on behalf of states and counties across the country against drug manufacturers have resulted in billions of dollars in settlements and awards to the plaintiffs to compensate them for the harm caused by the opioid epidemic. In a first-of-its-kind new verdict, a federal jury has found that pharmacies can also be held accountable for their contribution to the flood of opioid drugs onto our streets.

According to a national news report, a federal jury in Ohio reached a verdict in a case filed by several Ohio counties against three major pharmacy chains. The lawsuit alleged that the pharmacy chains contributed to a public nuisance by their lack of oversight in filling prescriptions for dangerous opioid drugs which contributed to overdoses and deaths within their jurisdictions. The decision represents the first time that a judge or jury has found that public nuisance laws apply to pharmacies in this context, and could result in other successful lawsuits against pharmacies for their role in the opioid epidemic. The news report cautions that similar cases have failed in other states and that each state’s differing public nuisance laws will play a role in whether pharmacies can be held accountable for their prescribing practices. Additionally, the defendants pledge to appeal the verdict to higher courts.

Licensed pharmacists have a duty to act in certain cases if they know or should know that a prescription is suspicious or erroneous. While the recent verdict determined that this duty can extend to filling opioid prescriptions, it also applies in a broader sense to other dangerous or mistaken prescriptions that a person attempts to fill. For example, a pharmacist has a duty to ensure that the dosage and drug prescribed to a patient are safe when considering the information known to the pharmacist. This duty helps prevent mistakes or typos by prescribing doctors from harming or killing patients who fill their prescriptions at a pharmacy. If a pharmacist fills a prescription that has a known harmful drug interaction with another medication that a patient is prescribed, they may be held accountable in civil court for the damages stemming from the prescription error, even if a licensed doctor wrote the prescription and it was properly filled.

Medical Malpractice Defendants’ Challenge to Trial Court Ruling Will Not Be Heard by Florida Court of Appeals

Published on: December 10, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida medical malpractice lawsuits must pass several procedural hurdles before a judge or jury is able to listen to the facts of the case and decide if the plaintiff is entitled to any relief. In Florida, one such rule requires plaintiffs to submit a statement from a qualified medical expert corroborating their claim before the suit can proceed. This requirement is designed to weed out meritless claims and free up space in court dockets for malpractice claims that have a chance of succeeding. A circuit of the Florida Court of Appeals recently addressed a petition filed by a group of medical malpractice defendants that alleged the plaintiff failed to meet the presuit expert corroboration requirements for a claim to proceed. The defendants petitioned the court to directly challenge a lower court ruling that denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim based upon this argument.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case sued several defendants affiliated with the Shands Teaching Hospital, located on the campus of the University of Florida in Gainesville. The plaintiff alleged in their suit that medical services provided by a certified nurse practitioner at the hospital were not compliant with the standard of care required and that the plaintiff was injured as a result. In order to comply with the presuit expert corroboration requirement for a Florida medical malpractice claim, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a certified medical doctor with knowledge in the field. In response to the plaintiff’s complaint, the defendants alleged that the plaintiff’s medical doctor expert was not qualified to address the standard of care applicable to the certified nurse practitioner who rendered care in the plaintiff’s case.

The trial court reviewed the qualifications of the plaintiff’s medical expert, comparing them with the substance of the plaintiff’s claim and the role assumed by the defendant. The court subsequently denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff’s expert opinion was sufficient to fulfill the presuit requirements for the case to proceed. The defendants then filed a petition with the Florida Court of Appeals, attempting to have their motion reheard by a higher court. In addressing the petition, the high court noted the strict procedural requirements for the court to hear the defendants’ appeal, and ultimately declined consideration of their arguments. Specifically, the court ruled that the defendants did not show that proceeding with the case at the trial court would result in direct and irreparable harm to the defendants that could not be corrected on direct appeal. As a result of the appellate ruling, the plaintiff’s claim will proceed at the lower court toward a settlement or trial.

Punitive Damages in a Florida Personal Injury Case

Published on: December 1, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When someone is injured while on the job, it can be both physically and emotionally difficult to recuperate. When an employer terminates a worker because they can no longer work at the level they used to, it may be cause for a lawsuit. A Florida appeals court was recently tasked with deciding whether an employee who was terminated after being injured on the job was entitled to, amongst other financial compensation, punitive damages—meaning the employer acted callously and disregarded her rights by not reinstating her.

Under maritime law, when someone works on a ship, the shipowner has the responsibility to provide food, lodging, and medical services—called “maintenance and cure” if a crew member is injured while working aboard the ship. However, the obligation to provide maintenance and cure concludes when the worker reaches maximum medical improvement.

In this case, the plaintiff worked as a server aboard a cruise ship. Approximately three months into her employment, she was hit by a car when on shore leave. The plaintiff then debarked the ship and returned home, and her cruise ship employer—the defendant in this case—paid her medical bills. She later was deemed at maximum medical improvement, returned to work, and then complained about chest pain within weeks; then, her employer told her to speak with a physician and they would reimburse her medical bills. When the plaintiff’s doctor stated the plaintiff was not fit to work as a server but declared her at the maximum medical improvement level, the defendant terminated her benefits. Over the next three years, the plaintiff sent the defendant her medical bills and statements from her doctor; the defendant refused to reinstate her benefits.

Road Rage and Aggressive Driving Lawsuits in Florida

Published on: December 1, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), over 90 percent of accidents involve driver error. Moreover, nearly 35 percent of those accidents involve road rage or aggressive driving. In Florida, road rage commonly refers to the anger a driver experiences when they experience stress or frustration while driving. Road rage is a serious problem in Florida, and a person’s fleeting rage can have long-term and potentially fatal consequences for other drivers, passengers, and bystanders.

While Florida authorities often distinguish between “driver error” and “aggressive driving,” many errors begin with an error and escalate into a rage. For instance, news reports described a harrowing road rage accident that took the life of a pregnant woman. The woman hit a motorcyclist and drove away from the incident. While the motorcyclist did not suffer injuries, he followed her to get information. The motorcyclist and two witnessed tried to get the woman to stop at an intersection; however, she continued driving and went to her home. The motorcyclist and witnesses followed her and waited outside of her home, and called 911. The woman appeared from her house with a firearm and pointed it at the motorcyclist and witnesses. The motorcyclist drew his handgun and shot at the woman multiple times. He remained at the scene of the accident until emergency responders arrived. Tragically, the woman died from her wounds.

Some common driver errors include:

New Details Emerge Following Florida Tesla Crash

Published on: November 18, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, news reports described new harrowing details following a Florida Tesla crash that occurred last September. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) conducted an investigation and reported that that the car flew through a yellow light at around 90 miles per hour. The speed limit in the neighborhood was 30 mph. Apparently, as the driver approached reached the intersection, he hit the accelerator to 100%. The driver then sped through the light and slammed into two trees in succession. Following the impact, the car’s battery exploded and burst into flames. The fire reignited at least one time which caused firefighters to experience challenges when trying to extinguish the explosion. The 20-year-old driver and his 19-year-old passenger died at the scene of the accident.

Tesla is frequently under fire for its self-driving or “autonomous” driving options. Many argue that these functions are not nearly as safe as the company touts, and a lack of driver experience and company oversight leads to deadly consequences. However, this accident seems to involve another issue concerning lithium batteries. The NTSB has repeatedly voiced concerns about lithium battery fires in aircraft, Teslas, and other vehicles. The agency has issued safety recommendations urging regulators, manufacturers, and firefighters to prevent and prepare for these types of fires.

Lithium-ion batteries have been the source of highly publicized investigations and recalls. Lithium is the lightest metal with the least dense solid element thereby creating a high-energy-density. This density allows lithium to store more energy over a longer time, compared to traditional batteries. Despite this benefit, the battery poses a serious danger because of its combustible material. A single cell can get hot to the point where it catches fire and spreads to the next cell. This “thermal runaway” effect essentially makes the battery easily catch fire or explode quickly.

Can You Recover Attorney’s Fees in a Florida Personal Injury Lawsuit?

Published on: November 18, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Many Florida personal injury lawyers represent clients on a “contingency fee” basis. Under this framework, an attorney will get paid by deducting a portion of a final, personal injury or wrongful death settlement or from a damages award. Recently, a Florida injury plaintiff moved to assess attorneys fees based upon a settlement proposal. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the settlement proposal was ambiguous.

The case stems from injuries the plaintiff suffered while living as a tenant on the defendant’s property. Before litigation, the plaintiff served the defendant with a settlement proposal according to Florida Statutes § 768.79 and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 1.442. The defendants did not accept the proposal, but a jury found it in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff moved for attorneys fees because the judgment exceeded the settlement proposal by more than twenty-five percent.

The defendants argued that the proposal included ambiguous and vague language and was beyond the scope of the claims. Florida courts strictly construe the statute and rule because the common law rule is that each party should pay its fees. Furthermore, settlements proposals must be “sufficiently clear” to allow the offeree to make an informed decision. The purpose of the rule is to conserve judicial resources and reduce litigation costs by encouraging settlement negotiations.

Florida Court Distinguishes Between Ordinary Negligence and Medical Negligence

Published on: November 10, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, an appellate court issued a decision addressing whether a plaintiff’s claim falls under Florida’s negligence statute or the state’s medical malpractice statute. The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant, a healthcare group, for injuries he suffered while receiving treatment at the facility. According to the record, the hospital admitted the patient for diagnostic imaging. Following the procedure, the plaintiff tried to move from the exam table to a wheelchair. However, the plaintiff fell because the attendant failed to secure the wheelchair brakes properly. The plaintiff claimed that his claim was based on ordinary negligence, not medical malpractice.

However, the court dismissed the complaint at trial, finding that the claim sounded in medical malpractice, and the plaintiff failed to abide by the applicable statute of limitations.

In cases like this, the initial inquiry is based on determining whether the claim stems from ordinary negligence or medical malpractice. According to Florida courts, these types of “gray-area” cases hinge on the specific circumstances of the injury. However, the law limits a court’s inquiry to the allegations within the “four corners” of the plaintiff’s complaint at the preliminary stages. In this case, the court found that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to meet the elements of an ordinary negligence claim. As such, they reversed the trial court’s finding, ruling that the dismissal with prejudice was inappropriate.