South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Florida Oral Contraceptive Injury Lawsuits

Published on: January 5, 2021 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Oral contraceptives and other types of hormonal and non-hormonal birth control devices are necessary and life-changing for many women who want to take charge of their fertility, address premenstrual syndrome conditions, and control some forms of acne. However, despite rigorous testing, many hormonal birth controls have side effects that may result in serious injuries and illnesses to their users. After taking an oral contraceptive or the insertion of an intrauterine device, individuals who suffer injuries may file a Florida dangerous drug lawsuit to recover for their injuries.

Many of these pills and devices contain a synthetic form of progestin. Although most women adjust to the pills, or do not suffer serious side effects, others experience significant medical side effects. Some side effects include deep vein thrombosis, venous thromboembolism (blood clots), heart attack, stroke, organ damage, or even death. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires pharmaceutical companies to improve their warning labels, women continue to suffer complications from these medications. In some cases, the warning labels are inadequate and do not clearly include the list of side effects. In other situations, doctors fail to assess their patients appropriately before prescribing the medication.

For instance, a circuit court of appeals recently issued an opinion in an unsafe oral contraceptive lawsuit relevant to Florida product liability plaintiffs. In that case, a woman suffered a debilitating stroke after taking an oral contraceptive, known to increase the risk of blood clots. The woman and her husband filed a lawsuit against the drug manufacturer for failure to provide an adequate warning of stroke risk. In response, the company moved to dismiss the claim, alleging that the learned intermediary doctrine limits their liability.

The Florida Rescue Doctrine

Published on: December 28, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

We’ve all driven by car accidents on the road, usually during a slow down or while authorities are still clearing a crash. How often, however, do you see people stopping to help who aren’t local law enforcement or emergency personnel? Do Florida residents have an obligation or responsibility to stop and help when they witness a major accident?

According to a recent news report, a young man was killed while assisting others involved in a significant car accident. After a crash between two vehicles in front of the young man, he pulled onto the shoulder of the road and ran across the interstate to see if he could help. While the young man was assisting the individuals involved in the crash, another pickup truck veered off the road and crashed into him and the other two cars involved in the initial accident. The pickup truck driver was not injured, but the young man who was assisting was killed on impact.

Although there is no legal obligation to rescue someone in the event of an accident in Florida, if someone is injured in the process of voluntarily rescuing someone, they may be able to recover compensation. In Florida, the rescue doctrine is available to rescuers injured while involved in a reasonable and necessary rescue effort. This law allows the rescuer to potentially recover damages from the party or parties who caused the rescue situation. Florida law holds the at-fault party responsible not only for the damage caused to the victim in the initial accident, but also to any individuals who get involved in the rescue effort.

The Rebuttable Presumption of Negligence in Florida Rear-End Accidents

Published on: December 23, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a news report described a harrowing Florida rear-end car accident that took the life of a 19-year-old woman. The woman was driving south on the Florida Turnpike when an SUV driver failed to slow his vehicle and slammed into the woman’s car. The woman’s vehicle veered into the barrier wall, and she was sadly pronounced dead at the scene.

After a Florida rear-end accident, those who suffer injuries or damages are entitled to pursue a claim for compensation for their losses and damages. Under state law, there is a “rebuttable presumption” of negligence doctrine in rear-end accidents. The presumption serves as a valuable tool for plaintiffs wishing to recover damages; however, it is important to note that, as the name suggests, defendants can rebut the presumption.

In typical Florida car accident lawsuits, plaintiffs maintain the burden of establishing all four elements of a negligence claim: duty, breach of the duty, causation, and damages. A rebuttable presumption is an evidentiary tool that provides that the rear vehicle driver bears the burden of providing evidence to refute their presumed negligence, or explain their failure to avoid the crash.

Proving Liability After a Florida DUI Accident

Published on: December 22, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Individuals charged under Florida’s driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while impaired (DWI) statutes may face criminal and civil charges. Under the criminal system, the state must prove that the defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Whereas, the burden is much lower in the civil system, and plaintiffs must only establish liability by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Although criminal charges are not necessary to a successful Florida personal injury lawsuit, they can certainly play a role in the outcome.

When someone suffers an injury, or dies after a Florida DUI accident, they or their families may recover damages from the responsible party. Families who wish to recover damages should understand the steps necessary to successfully establishing liability. One of the first factors courts will consider is whether the defendant was negligent or driving under the influence or while impaired. The courts will review whether the driver was showing signs of impairment after the accident. It is also essential that plaintiffs submit evidence of the driver’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC). However, currently, Florida does not have specific BAC testing requirements; therefore, it is up to the officer’s discretion whether they decide to conduct a test. Next, proving fault in a DUI accident requires the plaintiff to present evidence regarding the defendant’s intoxication level. Finally, it is important to establish whether the driver acted negligently and put the public at risk.

Evidence is critical in every personal injury case, but it is imperative in cases involving negligent per se. Negligence per se occurs when a person violates a statute created to protect a particular group of people, and the damage caused by the violation was the kind the statute was designed to protect. Negligence per se is often applicable in Florida DUI and DWI cases. Some critical pieces of evidence are police reports, witness accounts and statements, BAC testing results, medical records, and expert opinion testimony. It is important that victims and their families consult with an attorney because these accidents can cause serious long-term repercussions.

Florida Truck Accidents Lead the Country in Fatal Accidents

Published on: December 18, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

According to data gathered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Florida continually ranks in the top five states with the highest trucking accident rates. Data also reveals that Florida trucking accidents resulting in severe injuries and fatalities occur more than three times than that of the national average. These harrowing statistics reveal a disturbing trend that can have a lifelong impact on truck accident victims and their families.

Every year close to 150,000 individuals suffer injuries in an accident involving a semi-truck, and close to 700 semi-truck occupants die in these crashes. Most recent annual statistics by the FMCSA reports that Florida trucking accidents killed nearly 30 people, incapacitated 57, and over 1000 suffered other serious injuries. Despite advances in safety mechanisms, increased training, and monitoring, these accidents continue to occur at an alarming rate. It is critical that motorists take steps to protect themselves while sharing the road with large trucks, especially if they are traveling on particularly hazardous roadways.

There are particular roads and highways in Florida that are prone to large truck accidents. For example, I-95 stretches across the state and has over 300,000 motorists every day. Understandably, the high rate of vehicles on the road corresponds with the significant number of accidents on the road. However, there is also a large number of accidents that occur on the stretch north of Miami-Dade and Broward Counties. Florida’s Interstate 10 and the 11-county stretch of the Florida Turnpike are also considered some of the most dangerous roadways in the state and country.

Florida Premises Liability Cases Involving Allegations of a Victim’s Criminal Conduct

Published on: December 14, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent Florida District Court of Appeal opinion, the court considered whether a defendant was civilly liable for a death that occurred on its property. The case is unique because it involved allegations that the deceased accident victim was involved in criminal activity shortly before she died.

The plaintiff in the case filed a claim against the defendant lodge after her mother was fatally shot in a parking lot owned and operated by the lodge. Following a brawl between some individuals who were part of the decedent’s group and some members of the shooter’s group inside the lodge, the two groups were removed to the parking lot, where a second fight began. Evidence showed that the decedent participated in the parking lot fight and struck a pregnant female who was part of the shooter’s group. After the fight in the parking lot ended, the shooter’s group left the parking lot, and the decedent’s group got into their vehicle, which was parked in the defendant’s parking lot. Before the decedent’s group could pull out of the parking lot, the shooter’s group returned to the lot and opened fire on their vehicle. The decedent was fatally shot while sitting in the front seat.

At the lower court, the defendant argued that they should not be held liable for the decedent’s death because the decedent knowingly struck a pregnant female on their property, committing a crime. Because Florida law prohibits an accident victim from recovering for their injuries if they were hurt while engaging in a crime, the defendant argued that they were not responsible for the decedent’s death. The trial court disagreed and argued that the defense did not apply because the decedent was not engaged in a felony when she was shot.

Expert Witness Testimony in Florida Products Liability Lawsuit

Published on: December 10, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Individuals who wish to pursue damages after suffering injuries because of a defective product must be able to establish that the product was defectively designed, manufactured, or lacked appropriate instructions and warnings. Under Florida law, consumers may proceed under a negligence or strict liability theory. Although claims may involve both theories, strict liability governs Florida product liability lawsuits in most cases. Strict liability theory provides that a seller, distributor, manufacturer, or any other entity involved in distributing a product, may be liable to anyone who suffers injuries because of the product. Under this theory, defendants may still be liable, even if they engaged in all possible steps to ensure that the defect did not occur.

Product liability claimants must be able to prove that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous, the product injured the plaintiff, and the product’s inherent design or defect was the direct cause of the claimant’s injuries. The crux of product liability cases rest in whether a plaintiff can present enough compelling evidence to show that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous to a reasonable, ordinary consumer. Evidence of a defective product may be the product itself. However, in some cases, the product may no longer exist. This may occur if it was a consumable product, such as a prescription medication or supplement, or if the consumer did not own the product. In either case, expert witnesses provide plaintiffs with critical assistance in explaining complex subjects to juries.

Expert witnesses can effectively communicate complex technical and scientific concepts to juries. These witnesses can testify on an injury victim’s behalf and convey convoluted theories in a clear and manageable way to the trier of fact. Some common expert witnesses are medical experts, engineers, rehabilitation specialists, and economists. Expert witness testimony is often the most compelling portion of a plaintiff’s case.

The Consequences of Waiving Florida Uninsured Motorist Coverage

Published on: December 5, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Under and Uninsured Motorist (UIM) coverage protects individuals if they are involved in an accident with someone who does not have adequate amounts of insurance coverage. In Florida, many insurance companies allow customers to purchase “full coverage” insurance. Despite the name, full coverage insurance does not typically cover UIM coverage; instead, it refers to Florida’s minimum requirements. Moreover, Florida law does not require drivers to purchase bodily injury insurance coverage, which leads to a significant number of motorists operating their vehicles with insufficient insurance. UIM coverage works to protect drivers from having to pay substantial out of pocket costs after an accident.

The law requires Florida insurance companies to provide a UIM coverage option to policyholders. Customers who wish to reject the coverage must provide a waiver in writing. However, in many cases, insurance brokers do not express the necessity of the coverage and are quick to allow a policyholder to proceed with a waiver. As such, many people end up opting out of the coverage without understanding the significant financial repercussions they may encounter.

For example, recently, an appellate court in Florida issued an opinion stemming from a class-action lawsuit against Geico General Insurance Company. The plaintiffs in the class were comprised of Geico policyholders who rejected UIM coverage. The policyholders argued that Geico violated Florida’s UIM rejection coverage process. In Florida, the rejection must be in writing and fully advise the policyholder of the ramifications of opting out of the coverage. Further, policyholders may reject stacked coverage by signing the appropriate form. Here, before 2013, Geico’s online signature process required policyholders to click through screens to get to the electronic signature page. From 2013-2016 the insurance company required customers to view the form two times before signing; however, the form did not comply with state requirements. Finally, in 2016, Geico began displaying the form but did not require policyholders to click any links. In this case, the policyholders all waived UIM coverage during different periods and manner. The court held that the parties did not meet a class-action lawsuit’s requirements because they failed to establish commonality and typicality.

The Scope of a Landowner’s Duty Under Florida Premises Liability Law

Published on: December 3, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida law defines premises liability as a land or property owner’s liability for conditions or activities on their premises. The law imputes liability for injuries that a visitor suffers while on the landowners’ property. Liability is based upon the relationship between the visitor and the landowner. Generally, courts classify a visitor as either a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. Trespassers are those that are on the land without the knowledge or permission of the landowner. Whereas, licensees enter for the mutual convenience of both the visitor and the property owner, such as family and friends. Although duty and liability vary based upon the status, the law surrounding invitees have the most nuances. Invitees are usually either public invitees or business visitors. Public invitees enter the land as a member of the public for which the land is designed. Public invitees are those that enter places such as public parks, airports, or museums. In comparison, a business visitor enters a property or land for direct or indirect business dealings with the landowner, such as those that enter a shopping center, or a guest at an amusement park or hotel.

Independent contractors are a unique class of visitors that do not fall precisely within any of the classifications. Typically, landowners are not responsible for injuries that an independent contractor or their employees experience while engaging in their work. This rule applies even if the work is inherently dangerous, as long as the work is incidental to their job duties or disclosed. However, exceptions exist when the landowner actively participates or exercises direct control over the independent contractor’s work, or the owner creates a dangerous condition.

For instance, a Florida appellate court recently issued an opinion stemming from a premises liability lawsuit against a homeowner. In that case, the property owner hired the plaintiff to perform tree trimming services on his land. While trimming the trees, the plaintiff was electrocuted by an electric line. The victim admitted that he was aware of the electric line but did not know how dangerous it was. In coming to their decision, the court first explained that independent contractors are business invitees and, therefore, property owners are not generally liable for their work-related injuries. Moreover, in addressing an owner’s duty, the court described the open and obvious doctrine. Under this doctrine, the law entitles the owner to assume that the invitee will perceive any obvious dangers. In this case, regardless of the degree of dangerousness, the plaintiff attributed to the power line, it is clear that most electric lines are dangerous. Therefore, the electric line was not a latent danger, and the homeowner is not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Liability in Florida Truck Accidents Involving Dangerous or Defective Vehicle Components

Published on: November 27, 2020 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Defective commercial vehicles are a serious hazard to the health and public safety of all Floridians. Although Florida trucking accidents often involve the negligence of a trucking company or its drivers, design defects and faulty parts frequently play a significant role in a trucking accident. The sheer size and mechanical complexity of these vehicles require the safe interplay of various systems. Even seemingly minor defects can cause these large vehicles to become massive safety hazards.

The majority of truck accidents involving defective parts include faulty brakes, defective steering systems, tire failures, defective hydraulics and fuel systems, and inadequate safety and cargo restraints. For instance, recently, a state court heard a case arising from a tractor trailer’s malfunctioning dump gate. In that case, the truck driver was traveling on a highway when the trailer unexpectedly released its dump gate. The uncommanded action resulted in the trailer spilling massive amounts of gravel and sand onto the highway on more than one occasion. One of the incidents resulted in several collisions, damaging cars and injuring several motorists and passengers.

Injury victims and their loved ones may file a claim against various entities. The manufacturer, designer, distributor, retailer, or any other party responsible for putting a defective truck on the road may be liable. In the case above, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against both the trucking company and the defective valve manufacturer that caused the dump gate to spontaneously open. Following a settlement with the plaintiffs, the company sought contribution from the manufacturer. The company filed cross-claims against the manufacturer alleging unreasonably dangerous and defective design of the valve. The manufacturer sought to dismiss the claims, arguing that the company discarded relevant evidence. The court ultimately found that the company acted negligently in discarding the evidence, but not willfully.