Wrongful Death

October 29, 2024

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. /// Spouse Married Post-Accident Entitled to Florida Wrongful Death Damages

In Ripple v. CBS Corp., 385 So.3d 1021 (Fla. 2024), the Florida Supreme Court held that a spouse who married the decedent after the onset of the injury that caused the decedent’s death can recover damages as a “surviving spouse” under section 768.21(2) of the Florida Wrongful Death Act (the Act). That provision allows a “surviving spouse” to recover “for loss of the decedent’s companionship and protection and for mental pain and suffering from the date of injury.”

Relying on statutory interpretation, the Court rejected the argument that the common law “marriage before injury” rule bars recovery under section 768.21(2). The “marriage before injury” rule is limited to personal injury claims. It provides that where a couple is not married before the injury occurred, no consortium damages are available. See, e.g., Tremblay v. Carter, 390 So. 2d 816, 817 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980).

June 12, 2024

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Sovereign Immunity Strikes Again — Not Good!!!

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

We just received a telephone call from a heartbroken mother whose 47-year old daughter died a few years ago after falling into a diabetic coma. A well-being, or safety check, call was made to the local police department a day after the young woman phoned to inform her employer that she wasn’t feeling well. A law enforcement officer went to her home that day, but her parents believe that the officer failed to take appropriate actions as her car was in the driveway and the windows of her home were open even though it was raining. The officer did not make contact with the woman or attempt to go into the home. She was found deceased in her home two days later. The mother believes her daughter was incapacitated but alive at the time of the safety call and could have been rescued if she had been discovered then and emergency care rendered.

February 12, 2024

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Avoiding Workers’ Compensation Immunity by Estoppel — Not So Fast!

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Florida’s civil liability and workers’ compensation systems handle legal matters for people injured or who have died in accidents. The systems have some similarities and differences. The biggest differences are that the plaintiff must prove fault to recover under civil law, and recoveries for non-economic damages (such as pain and suffering) are not available in workers’ compensation cases. It is not always obvious which remedy route is the best to follow. Most of the time, the aggrieved party does not have a choice.

Employers and fellow-employees are immune from civil lawsuits for work-related accidents. See sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes. In other words, the workers’ compensation system is the harmed individual’s exclusive remedy.

Exceptions arise when the employer has failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation (440.10(1) and 440.11(1)(a)), the employer commits an intentional tort (440.11(1)(b), or the fellow-employee acts with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence (440.11(1)).

Another exception may apply when 1) the employer makes a representation of a material fact that is contrary to a later-asserted position; 2) the harmed worker relies on that representation; and 3) the worker is damaged by changing his or her position in reliance on said representation. See Specialty Emp. Leasing v. Davis, 737 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (quoting Dep’t of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So. 2d 397, 400 (Fla. 1981)). This exception is known as equitable estoppel.

In McNair v. Dorsey, 291 So.3d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020), McNair was injured while carrying a tree branch to a wood chipper. The employer first asserted that there was “no compensable accident.” In a later pretrial stipulation, the employer claimed that no compensable accident occurred, and took the position that McNair’s accident did not occur within the course and scope of his employment.

February 3, 2024

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Look Past Native Indian Sovereign Immunity for Private Party Personal Injury Liability

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

In Florida, Native American tribes operate popular business establishments. On occasion, patrons frequenting the establishments are hurt by dangerous conditions created through negligence.

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; Article I, Section 8; The Fourteenth Amendment), treaties, and laws, authorize Native American tribes to govern themselves as sovereign nations within the United States.

Florida’s personal injury and wrongful death laws hold parties accountable for their negligence. As independent sovereign nations, the tribes are not subject to these laws.

Until 2021, when the Seminole Tribe signed a gaming compact with the state of Florida, the tribe could not be forced to pay any damages to individuals hurt on their property. Under the Compact, the Seminoles agreed to be subject to damage awards capped at $200,000 per individual/$300,000 per claim.

November 12, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Difference Between Workers’ Compensation Lien and Medicare Lien in Death Cases

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

A lien is a claim held by a party against the settlement or judgment in a personal injury or death case for reimbursement of damages it has paid in the case. This blog will discuss two types of liens commonly arising in death cases, the Medicare lien and the workers’ compensation lien.

Medicare pays medical expenses while both medical and indemnity (money) benefits are paid by the employer and its insurance carrier in Florida workers’ compensation cases. Each type is often paid in association with cases where the victim ends up dying.

42 CFR sec. 411.24 sets forth Medicare’s lien rights. Section 440.39, Florida Statutes covers the employer/carrier’s lien rights in workers’ compensation cases.

Section 786.21 of Florida’s Wrongful Death Act defines the type of benefits available in civil law wrongful death cases. Section 440.16 does this in the context of workers’ compensation cases. In some instances, a recovery under both laws is available for the same accident.

October 14, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Sovereign Immunity (“The King can do no wrong”) Harms We the People

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

One of the primary public policy reasons for having a robust civil justice system that is able to exact full compensatory damages from negligent actors is to encourage safe conduct. Short of criminal punishment, nothing motivates people and corporations to act responsibly more than the threat of losing money.

Sovereign Immunity is a legal concept applied in monarchies and constitutional monarchies such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Jordan, and the Netherlands, to make the sovereign or state immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. It is derived from the Latin maxim Rex non potest peccare, meaning “the king can do no wrong.” Florida has enacted a modified version of sovereign immunity in the area of civil law involving personal injuries and wrongful death.

Under Florida civil law, people and companies who are not protected by sovereign immunity can be held accountable up to the full measure of the damages caused by their negligence. Those damages can include pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of income. In cases involving serious injuries or the loss of life, the full measure of damages can be in the millions.

Florida’s sovereign immunity law limits the amount of compensation the sovereign can be compelled to pay. Under section 768.28(5)(a), Florida Statutes, the sovereign, described as “the state and its agencies and subdivisions,” is limited to paying $200,000 per individual, $300,000 per claim. In other words, the most a sovereign will ever have to pay in a single case is $300,000. It does not matter how substantial the actual losses are.

This arbitrary sovereign immunity cap defeats the public policy of encouraging safe conduct.

October 6, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Duty and Proximate Cause are Essential Elements of Every Florida Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Negligence Case

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Duty and proximate cause are essential elements of every Florida personal injury and wrongful death negligence case.

DUTY: “Where a defendant’s conduct creates a foreseeable zone of risk, the law generally will recognize a duty placed upon defendant either to lessen the risk or see that sufficient precautions are taken to protect others from the harm that the risk poses.” See Kaisner v Kolb, 543 So.2d 732, 735 (Fla. 1989) (citing Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So.2d 33, 35 (Fla. 1983)).

PROXIMATE CAUSE: “The proximate causation element, on the other hand, is concerned with whether and to what extent the defendant’s conduct foreseeably and substantially caused the specific injury that actually occurred.” McCain v. Florida Power Corporation, 593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla. 1992).

While the concept of foreseeability can be relevant to both elements, the concept “relates to duty and proximate causation in different ways and to different ends.” Id. at 502. Hence, merging the two elements into a single hybrid foreseeability analysis would be incorrect.

June 1, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Fundamentals Always Matter — Proximate Cause

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

In every negligence action for injuries or wrongful death the plaintiff must establish (1) a duty owed by the defendant; (2) the defendant’s breach of the duty; and (3) and that said breach proximately caused the damages claimed.

In negligence actions Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury. See Tampa Electric Co. v. Jones, 138 Fla. 746, 190 So. 26 (1939); Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So.2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1979); Bryant v. Jax Liquors, 352 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 710 (Fla. 1978). Prosser explored this standard of proof as follows:

On the issue of the fact of causation, as on other issues essential to his cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff, in general, has the burden of proof. He must introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a substantial factor in bringing about the result. A mere possibility of such causation is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.

The north star of the law of causation is the landmark supreme court decision in Gooding v. University Hospital Building, Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1020 (Fla. 1984). The Florida Supreme Court described the case as follows:

Emily Gooding, personal representative of Mr. Gooding’s estate, brought a wrongful death action against the hospital alleging negligence by the emergency room staff in not taking an adequate history, in failing to physically examine Mr. Gooding, and in not ordering the laboratory tests necessary to diagnose and treat Mr. Gooding’s abdominal aneurysm before he bled out and went into cardiac arrest. Mrs. Gooding’s expert witness, Dr. Charles Bailey, a cardiologist, testified that the inaction of the emergency room staff violated accepted medical standards [i.e., there was a breach]. Dr. Bailey, however, failed to testify that immediate diagnosis and surgery more likely than not would have enabled Mr. Gooding to survive.

The trial court denied the hospital’s motion for directed verdict on causation. The jury found the hospital liable and awarded damages. The hospital appealed. The First District Court of Appeal reversed on the grounds that the trial court should have directed a verdict in favor of the hospital because Mr. Gooding’s chances of survival under the best of conditions were no more than even. The plaintiff, therefore, could not meet the more likely than not test for causation. The Supreme Court affirmed the DCA on this holding.

January 14, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Recovering for Mental and Nervous Injuries in Florida

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Florida’s liability law and workers’ compensation systems are cautious about awarding benefits for mental and nervous injuries. The underlying basis for the caution is that allowing recovery for injuries resulting from purely emotional distress would open the floodgates for fictitious or speculative claims. R.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So.2d 360 (Fla.1995).

What has come to be known as the “Impact Rule” requires that “before a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligence of another, the emotional distress suffered must flow from physical injuries the plaintiff sustained in an impact.'” See Southern Baptist Hosp. of Fla. v. Welker, 908 So.2d 317 (Fla.2005).

The rule is applied in common law personal injury cases and in workers’ compensation cases.

Limited exceptions to the Impact Rule apply in both fields. The common law exceptions have been created by the Florida Supreme Court. See, e.g., Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. King, 557 So.2d 574 (Fla.1990) (recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress absent impact); Champion v. Gray, 478 So.2d 17 (Fla.1985) (allowing recovery where plaintiff is in the “sensory perception” of physical injuries sustained by a close family member); Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So.2d 415 (Fla.1992) (finding rule inapplicable to actions for wrongful birth); Tanner v. Hartog, 696 So.2d 705 (Fla.1997) (impact rule does not preclude recovery of non-economic damages for parents of stillborn child); Gracey v. Eaker (impact rule inapplicable for breach of statutory duty of confidentiality to patient); Rowell v. Holt, 850 So.2d 474 (Fla.2003) (impact rule does not preclude recovery for psychological injury due to attorney’s negligence).

In short, “[e]xceptions to the rule have been narrowly created and defined in a certain very narrow class of cases in which the foreseeability and gravity of the emotional injury involved, and lack of countervailing policy concerns, have surmounted the policy rationale undergirding application of the impact rule.” Id. at 478.

Compare these close-call cases: R.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1995) (impact rule applies to negligent HIV diagnosis without physical damage), Woodard v. Jupiter Christian School, Inc., 913 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 2005) (impact rule applies to outing student’s homosexuality).

July 27, 2022

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Unrelated Works Exception to Workers’ Compensation Immunity Does Not Apply to Employees of a Different Subcontractor

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

It is the job of every injury lawyer to maximize the client’s recovery. Sometimes when a person is hurt at work, more than one remedy is available. Workers’ compensation is one remedy. Civil law is another.

Florida’s workers’ compensation laws do not allow for the recovery of noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering. Workers’ compensation covers only authorized medical expenses and a defined period of lost wages. Noneconomic damages are not allowed. Civil remedy damages include economic damages such as medical expenses and lost wages as well as noneconomic damages.

Florida Statute 440.11 provides immunity to employers and their employees from civil remedy actions. There are exceptions to this rule. The exceptions are outlined in 440.11. The employer loses its immunity if it fails to maintain the workers’ compensation security required by Chapter 440 or commits an intentional tort. Section 440.11(1)(b) describes the fellow-employee exceptions:

Fellow-employee immunities shall not be applicable to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence when such acts result in injury or death or such acts proximately cause such injury or death, nor shall such immunities be applicable to employees of the same employer when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer’s business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment. (Italics added.)

In Moradiellos v Gerelco Traffic Controls, Inc., 176 So.3d 329 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2015), Mr. Moradiellos was killed in a construction site incident caused by the negligence of a subcontractor’s employee. Employees of construction subcontractors typically also get the 440.11 workers’ compensation immunity. The decedent was employed by the general contractor.