South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Florida Premises Liability Claims and the State’s Recreational Use Statute

Published on: September 27, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Florida, landowners are required to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition for those whom they invite onto their land. As a general rule, a landowner must take care to either remedy all known hazards on their property or at least warn visitors of the presence of the hazard.

Importantly, a Florida slip-and-fall injury victim does not need to prove that the landowner had actual knowledge of a hazard in order to be successful. It is sufficient to establish that the landowner “should have known” about the hazard, given the surrounding circumstances. This is helpful to many Florida premises liability plaintiffs because landowners may not readily admit that they were aware of a hazard on their property.

Another wrinkle in Florida premises liability law is the state’s recreational use statute. Under Florida Statutes section 375.251, a landowner who allows their land to be used by the public for recreational purposes does not have a duty to keep the land safe or to warn those who use the land of any hazards. In order for the recreational use state to apply, the defendant cannot charge a fee for the use of their land. Additionally, the statute does not protect a landowner against “willful or malicious” conduct. However, this can be difficult to establish. A recent case illustrates a plaintiff’s attempt to establish a city’s “willful or malicious” conduct.

Court Permits Florida Medical Malpractice Plaintiff’s Case to Proceed Despite Non-Compliant Expert Affidavit

Published on: September 24, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, the state’s supreme court issued a very important opinion in a Florida medical malpractice case discussing under what circumstances a plaintiff’s case must be dismissed when she fails to comply with the expert opinion requirement contained in Florida Statutes section 766.102. Importantly, the court held that a plaintiff’s case should not be dismissed for lack of a qualifying expert opinion unless the defense can show that the plaintiff’s failure to comply caused prejudice to the defense.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the personal representative of a woman who died after having a complicated pregnancy that resulted in the stillbirth of her child. Pursuant to section 766.203(2), the plaintiff designated an expert witness, who was a board-certified OB/GYN.

The plaintiff’s selected expert had over 30 years of experience in the field, and had delivered over 14,000 babies. She had also served as chief of the OB-GYN department at a large medical center, and Chief of Staff at a small women’s specialty hospital. In 2005, the expert began law school, and obtained her Juris Doctorate in 2007. However, when asked, the expert stated that she “was engaged in full-time patient care until March 2008.”

Court Discusses Caterer’s Liability in Recent Food-Poisoning Case

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

When a customer consumes food prepared by a restaurant or caterer, the customer is placing a significant amount of trust in those who are preparing the food. However, in many cases each year, diners are made ill by improperly stored or prepared food. These Florida food poisoning cases are brought under the theory of product liability.

In a recent state appellate opinion, a court discussed a caterer’s potential liability in a case brought by a couple who claimed that they suffered food poisoning after consuming food prepared by the defendant caterer. Specifically, the case required the court to determine the burden a food-poisoning plaintiff has to meet to survive a defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were wedding guests who were made ill after consuming food at the wedding rehearsal dinner. The plaintiffs filed a product liability lawsuit against the catering company, seeking compensation for the injuries they sustained. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the food was “defective, pathogen-contaminated, undercooked, and negligently prepared.”

Court Precludes Expert Testimony in Recent Product Liability Case

Published on: September 17, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case discussing the admissibility of the plaintiff’s proposed expert-witness testimony. The case raised an important issue that many Florida personal injury plaintiffs face when dealing with concepts that are beyond the scope of the common understanding of jurors and require an expert’s testimony.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and her infant son were involved in an accident when a northbound semi-truck made a left in front of the plaintiff’s southbound vehicle. The plaintiff’s car crashed into the side of the semi-truck, and became wedged underneath the truck. The plaintiff filed a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of the trailer, arguing that her injuries were made worse by the fact that the truck did not have a side-underride guard. One of the elements the plaintiffs needed to establish to prove their case was whether there was “an alternative safer design” that was “practical under the circumstances.”

The plaintiff arranged to have two experts testify that, had the manufacturer installed telescoping side-underride guards, her vehicle would not likely have been wedged underneath the truck. While side-underride guards have existed for some time, telescoping side-underride guards have not yet been manufactured and have only been tested through computer simulations. Notably, due to the nature of the accident, the opinion of the plaintiff’s experts was that only a telescoping side-underride guard would have prevented or reduced the plaintiff’s injuries. This was due to the positioning of the truck’s rear axle at the time of the accident.

Florida Court Dismisses Slip-and-Fall Case, Finding the Hazard Causing the Plaintiff’s Fall Was “Open and Obvious”

Published on: September 13, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a Florida premise liability lawsuit discussing a landowner’s liability involving potentially hazardous conditions of the property. Specifically, the case dealt with a hazard that the court held to be “open and obvious.” The court held that because the hazard was easily observable by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was put on notice of the hazard’s existence and thus, the defendant could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was exiting a movie theater when he left the paved sidewalk to cut through a planter box containing a large palm tree. The ground immediately around the base of the palm tree contained artificial turf and some paving bricks that had become uneven as the tree’s roots grew underneath.

As the plaintiff walked across the planter box, he tripped and fell in a divot in the ground. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries as a result of the fall and filed a premises liability lawsuit against the movie theater.

The Importance of Expert Testimony in Florida Cases Involving a Professional Duty of Care

Published on: September 10, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Florida personal injury cases, the jury must make the ultimate decision as to whether the defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff’s injuries, and what, if any, damages are appropriate. In many cases, the judge will explain the legal issues involved in the case to the jury, and the jurors will then be able to use their common sense to resolve the issues. However, in some cases involving issues that are beyond the understanding of most jurors, the plaintiff may be required to present the testimony of an expert witness.

An expert witness is someone who is an expert in the specific issue raised by the case. In Florida medical malpractice cases, doctors are often used as expert witnesses. In Florida car accident cases, engineers may be called as expert witnesses. There is no hard-and-fast rule stating when an expert is necessary, but Florida law allows for an expert to be called whenever “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge would assist the trier of fact.” While some cases, such as Florida medical malpractice cases, require expert testimony, the decision whether to call an expert witness is normally left to the discretion of the parties.

In a recent appellate decision, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s case because she failed to present expert testimony in support of her position.

Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Parking-Lot Slip-and-Fall Case

Published on: September 7, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case discussing the duty that a business has to maintain the area that customers use to approach the business. Ultimately, the court concluded that while a business may be responsible for maintaining the immediate area of approach, the business in this case was not liable for the plaintiff’s injury which occurred about 45 feet outside of the store’s doors in the parking lot.

The case presents an interesting issue for Florida slip-and-fall accident victims because it discusses which parties may be liable for the various areas in a commercial shopping center. Importantly, only the store was named in this case, and not the shopping center that owned and maintained the parking lot.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was shopping at a Big Lots store when she slipped on a wet substance in the store’s parking lot while she was on her way back to her car. The location of the plaintiff’s fall was about 45 feet from the store’s door. The store was in a shopping center that was owned by another company, which was not named in the lawsuit.

Failure-to-Warn Claims Under Florida Product Liability Law

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

Ideally, all products would be safe; however, the reality is that society has a need for products that can be very dangerous. For example, it would seemingly be impossible to manufacture a safe chainsaw. But the mere fact that society has a need for a product that is inherently dangerous does not absolve the manufacturer of that product from the responsibility of providing an adequate warning.

Warnings are important, even on products society recognizes as dangerous. A proper warning will inform users of the appropriate way to use the product, the potentially avoidable dangers involved when the product is used for its intended purpose, as well as what can occur if the warning is not followed. Additionally, manufacturers should warn users against foreseeable misuses of the product. A manufacturer’s failure to provide an adequate warning on their product may be the basis of a Florida failure-to-warn claim.

A recent federal appellate court issued a written opinion in which the court discussed the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim.

Claims Against Government Employees and Agencies Must Comply with the Requirements of the FTCA

Published on: August 31, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

During the formation of our country, the founding fathers did not provide a mechanism for citizens to hold the federal, state, and local governments liable for injuries caused by government actors, unless the government being named as a defendant agreed to be named in the lawsuit. In fact, governments were then, and still are to some extent, presumed to be immune from tort liability. However, since then, state and federal lawmakers have passed a series of laws known as tort claims acts, which statutorily waive government immunity in certain circumstances.

Generally, a tort claims act requires that certain procedures be followed in order for the government to waive its immunity. The State of Florida is no different. Under the Florida Tort Claims Act (FTCA), if a Florida accident victim fails to comply with the requirements of the FTCA, the accident victim’s case will be dismissed. Thus, it is very important that an accident victim ensure that they follow all the requirements of the FTCA.

A recent case illustrates the strict manner in which courts apply the requirements of a tort claims act.

Court Discusses Venue Selection in Recent UIM Case

Published on: August 23, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Florida car accident cases, one of the first issues the parties may argue over is where the case will be heard. Of course, most plaintiffs would prefer to file the case in a venue that is convenient for them. However, as a general rule venue is appropriate where the defendant resides. That being said, a plaintiff can choose where to initially file a case, and may have some say in where a case is heard.

A recent case discusses a somewhat complicated venue issue that arose after an uninsured motorist collision. The case involved a named and an unnamed defendant, and required the court to determine whether the named defendant should be able to transfer the case to his home county. Finding that the case could be heard in either of the defendant’s home venues, the court determined that the named defendant was not entitled to transfer the case.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were involved in a three-car accident after an unnamed driver swerved in front of their vehicle, requiring them to quickly apply the brakes. The named defendant, who was traveling directly behind the plaintiffs, slammed into the back of their car. The plaintiffs claimed the named defendant was following too closely.