Articles Posted in Personal Injury

In the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln declared that we are a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Sadly, this message has not registered with Florida lawmakers. (Please see this blog for a significant modification of this statement.)

As should be the case, individuals and corporations whose negligence causes harm in Florida must pay full compensation for the damage caused by those acts. (Major exception: doctors and medical facilities.) For example, if a civil jury renders a verdict against driver A in the amount of $1,000,000 for crashing into the rear of driver B at 60 mph while operating a company vehicle, a judgment in that amount will be entered by the court against driver A and the company. (Whether or not driver A and the company have the capacity to pay, through insurance or otherwise, is another issue.)

Unfortunately, this would not be the outcome if the at-fault vehicle were owned by the government. In that situation, Florida law (768.28(5)) nullifies the voice of the jury, only allowing the judge to enter a judgment against the government (e.g., city, state, governmental agency, village, etc.) in the amount of $100,000. That’s right. The government is not subject to the considered decision of the jury. If that isn’t bad enough, when the negligence occurs at the planning level stage, instead of at the operational stage, the government has absolute immunity from being sued. This means that a lawsuit will not be allowed to proceed against the government when the negligence occurs at the planning stage.

Parties held fully accountable for the consequences of their actions learn to modify their behavior for the better. Those not held accountable, do not learn or modify. This is the problem with Florida’s sovereign (i.e., government) immunity law. The sovereign acts with impunity because the consequences of its bad acts are de minimus. I say take away the government’s sovereign immunity. Make it equally accountable as private individuals and corporations. Maybe then the sovereign will act as it should, with due regard for the health, safety, and welfare of the people, instead of the other way around. As Abraham Lincoln famously said, we are a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
Continue reading

Tort “deformers” purposely fail to make full disclosure in their holy war against the civil law justice system. A prominent example of something not being divulged is the well-established principle of law commonly known in Florida as Comparative Fault or Contributory Fault/Negligence. Quite simply, this concept provides that the Plaintiff’s degree of fault, if any, will be held against him or her in a claim against others arising out of an accident resulting in injury or death.

In every personal injury case, the degree of damage (injury or death; economic losses) sustained by the Plaintiff equals 100%. If the defendant or defendants – the parties being blamed [by the Plaintiff] for causing the accident – are found by a jury to be 100% at fault, they will be responsible for paying 100% of the Plaintiff’s damages. If, however, the Plaintiff is found to be at-fault in any degree for causing the accident, his or her recovery will be reduced accordingly. For example, if a jury determines that the Plaintiff has sustained damages totaling $200,000, but also finds that the Plaintiff is 25% at-fault, the Plaintiff’s net recovery will be $150,000.

This principle of Comparative Fault is just one of many legal concepts never mentioned by those forces bound and determined to bar the courthouse doors from the men, women, and children of this state in need of legal redress.

Stay tuned for further examples.
Continue reading

Pharmaceutical drugs can work positive wonders. Unfortunately, if abused or misused, they can be terribly harmful. In today’s fast-paced world, simple errors involving prescription medicine are not uncommon. From a scribbled doctor’s prescription, to failing to learn of allergies or the contraindications of mixing medicines, to dispensing medication to the wrong patient, mistakes happen. The numbers are staggering.
Continue reading

In a conscious effort to create a negative view of trial lawyers and civil lawsuits, Corporate America has for years distorted the truth about the famous McDonalds coffee spill case, the poster child for the frivolous lawsuits mantra. Sadly, the public has fallen for the propoganda hook, line and sinker.

Why, might you ask, would Corporate America wish to turn the public against trial lawyers and civil lawsuits? The answer is simple. Profits over people. By limiting the right of individuals to seek redress against big business, they become less accountable for their negligent conduct. Civil lawsuits make big business pay for its negligence. Limit civil lawsuits, limit accountability.

How, might you ask, does the propoganda limit accountability? The unknowing and gullible public presses its politicians to do something about the “lawsuit crisis.” “Conservative” legislators, all too happy to take up the cause – although not without a price – you can be sure that the loudest political voices for curtailing civil lawsuits, receive the most money from big business – devise laws with the effect of making it ever more difficult to take on big business in our courts of law. Barring the courthouse doors, so to speak, from “We, the People.” It has been happening for years, and it’s not pretty. Frankly, it is frightening. Big business run amock.

Back to the McDonalds coffee spill case.

Background: In 1994, a New Mexico jury awarded a woman 2.9 million in a case arising out of hot coffee spilling onto her lap while sitting in a car driven by her grandson. The Plaintiff (the person who received the jury verdict) was a 79-year old retired sales clerk who had never before sued anyone. When she placed the coffee between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and sugar, the scalding hot coffee spilled out onto her lap, causing third-degree burns on her groin and thigh area. She was hospitalized for eight days and incurred medical expenses in excess of $11,000. She was left with permanent pain and scarring. The jury trial lasted 7 days.

The untold story:

• The woman’s request to have her medical bills paid was countered with an offer from McDonalds in the amount of $800
• It takes less than 3 seconds to produce third-degree burns at 190 degrees, 12-15 seconds at 180 and 20 seconds at 160. McDonalds brewed its coffee at 195 to 205 degrees.
• McDonalds own records revealed that in the previous 10 years, it had received more than 700 reports of burns from scalding coffee, and the company had spent more than $500,000 in settling these claims

The jury awarded damages of $200,000, reduced to $160,000 based on the plaintiff’s 20% negligence for spilling the coffee, and punitive damages (for conduct held to be willful, malicious and reckless) in the amount of $2.7 million, later reduced by the trial judge to $480,000. Both sides appealed and later reached a confidential settlement. Interestingly, One day after the jury verdict, the coffee temperature at the restaurant in location was tested and had been reduced to 158 degrees.
Continue reading

Individuals injured in Florida accidents through the negligence of others may be entitled to compensation for their injuries. To determine fair compensation value, the injuries must be documented and treated by qualified medical professionals. Unfortunately, not everyone has insurance or other means to pay for medical care. Thankfully, some medical providers will provide care to genuinely injured individuals on the expectation of receiving payment from the personal injury case recovery. Because of the uncertainty of achieving success in the personal injury case, it is a risk for the medical providers, who often invest substantial amounts of time and resources, to provide the care. Fortunately, the medical providers understand the risk and do not expect the patient to pay out-of-pocket when no recovery is made. Due to the risk, medical providers limit this service to trustworthy lawyers willing to provide an honest analysis of the eventual outcome of the underlying case.

Hats off to these professionals for providing this valuable service.

*************************************************

In simple terms, the human spine consists of bones (vertebrae), the spinal cord, nerves, and intervertebral discs. The spinal cord is about 18 inches in length and extends from the base of the brain, surrounded by the vertebral bodies, down the middle of the back, to about the waist. The nerves branch out from the spinal cord to carry signals throughout the body.

Intervertebral discs, composed of a gel-like substance (nucleus pulposus) contained within an outer skin (anulus fibrosus), sit between the bony vertebrae. They act as shock absorbers between the vertebrae and allow the spine to be flexible. The spinal cord runs parallel to the intervertebral discs within the spinal column.

Healthy intervertebral discs pose no threat to the spinal cord and nerve roots. However, trauma associated with accidents (slip & fall; motor vehicle crashes) may cause the nucleus pulposus to bulge or herniate (rupture). A bulge is when the nucleus pulposus becomes distorted but remains contained within the anulus fibrosis. A herniation is when the nucleus pulposus breaks through the anulus fibrosis.
Continue reading

On February 10, 2010, the 3rd District Court of Appeal in MIami reversed a jury verdict rendered against the Archdiocese of Miami and Archbishop Coleman F. Carroll High School arising out of a catastrophic car crash in 2001. One of the plaintiffs in the case, Gabriel Maynoldi, sustained severe brain damage and is a quadraplegic. Gabriel needs around-the-clock medical care.

The accident happened after Gabriel and his best friend, both 17, left an end-of-the-year school party held in a private home where alcohol was being served. More than 100 fellow students attended the party. Both boys were drunk when they drove off in a motor vehicle and crashed. The other young boy was killed in the crash.

The plaintiffs, including Gabriel’s parents, argued that the Archdiocese and the high school should be held partly responsible for allegedly sanctioning and promoting the party. The jury agreed, and assessed damages against the Archdiocese totaling $12 million. The District Court disagreed, ruling that a school’s obligation to supervise students ends when a student leaves the school’s premises and is no longer involved in school-related activities.