Florida Injury Attorney Blawg

June 23, 2012

Special Considerations in Florida Motor Vehicle Crash Cases Involving Alcohol (DUI)

Astute personal injury lawyers always look for ways to maximize their client’s financial recovery. Establishing aggravating factors against the at-fault party is one of the main ways of doing this. In motor vehicle accident cases, there is no better opportunity for scoring points against the liable party than connecting alcohol use to the accident.

The involvement of alcohol can lead to a claim for punitive damages. The procedure for claiming punitive damages and the standards for holding a defendant liable for punitive damages are set forth in Florida Statute 768.72.

A claim for punitive damages may not be plead in the initial complaint. Rather, the Plaintiff must seek leave of court to amend the complaint to claim punitive damages. The judge should allow the amendment if evidence in the record or proferred by the Plaintiff provides a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages. Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So.2d 158 (Fla.1996) and F.S. 768.72(1). Contrary to the proposition often put forward by Defendants, the statute does not require an evidentiary hearing to permit the amendment. Pursuant to section 768.72, a proffer of evidence can support a trial court’s determination. Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 677 So.2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

768.72 says this about what must be shown to establish liability:

(2) A defendant may be held liable for punitive damages only if the trier of fact, based on clear and convincing evidence, finds that the defendant was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Intentional misconduct” means that the defendant had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury or damage to the claimant would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage.

(b) “Gross negligence” means that the defendant’s conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.

June 19, 2012

Summary of Important Changes to Florida’s PIP Law (2012/2013)

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

The essential parts of Florida House Bill 119, addressing Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits, were crafted in the closing days of the 2012 legislative session, sometimes behind closed doors, mostly without any public or committee vetting, and, of course, with undue influence from the insurance industry and not enough input from consumers. As has been widely reported, just as Governor Scott, the leading proponent of revising PIP, was lobbying legislators, United Group Underwriters, an affiliate of United Automobile Insurance Company, a leading Florida PIP carrier, gave $100,000 to his Let’s Get to Work political committee. Not surprisingly, the end result of the bill is that consumers will receive less while PIP carriers profit more.

The beat goes on….

That said, consumers and lawyers must know the changes. Here’s a brief summary of some of the important changes:

MEDICAL (unless otherwise indicated, these provisions become effective January 1, 2013):

14 Day Rule (Florida Statute 627.736(1)(a)1): Unless the insured receives medical care within 14 days after the motor vehicle accident from a hospital facility, emergency transport, an M.D., D.O., D.C., or D.D.S., there is no PIP coverage for any medical benefits.
Followup medical care and services must be “consistent” with the underlying medical diagnosis provided pursuant to the services furnished within the first 14 days (F.S. 627.736(1)(a)2). Put another way, medical coverage is limited to the initial injury diagnosis.
Medical Coverage Limited to $2500 unless “Emergency Medical Condition”: The definition of “Emergency Medical Condition” is located at F.S. 672.732(16). Only the types of medical providers listed in F.S. 627.736(1)(a)3 are allowed to determine if the injured person has sustained an “Emergency Medical Condition.” Chiropractors are not included in this list. Interestingly, if any medical provider listed in subparagraph 1 or subparagraph 2 determines that the injured person did not have an emergency medical condition, PIP benefits are limited to $2500. Chiropractors are listed in this group of medical providers.
Massage and acupuncture no longer covered by PIP

OBTAINING PIP LEDGER (627.736(4)(j). The new statute only requires insurers to provide their insureds with PIP payment logs once litigation is commenced. This is silly; PIP carriers should be required to produce logs at all reasonable times including presuit. Some litigation is commenced because the insured, through no fault of his own, does not know what benefits have been paid. A ledger avoids this situation. Also, logs are needed to help resolve personal injury claims. It lets both sides know how much the amount of outstanding medical expenses. Even though current law, Southern Group Indemnity, Inc. v. Humanitary Health Care, Inc., 975 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2008), does not require carriers to provide ledgers presuit, they typically do as a courtesy. Let’s hope the revised PIP statute does not put an end to this courtesy.
Continue reading

June 8, 2012

Vehicle Ownership and Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Florida adheres to the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The doctrine stands for the proposition that since motor vehicles are dangerous instrumentalities, their owners should be held liable for the negligent operation of the vehicles by persons to whom they have been entrusted. The doctrine has been a part of Florida law since 1920. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920).

While Florida is one of only a handful of states to apply the doctrine, its impact has been watered down by arbitrary damage caps created by the Florida Legislature. The caps, contained in Florida Statute 324.021(9)(b)3, read as follows:

The owner who is a natural person and loans a motor vehicle to any permissive user shall be liable for the operation of the vehicle or the acts of the operator in connection therewith only up to $100,000 per person and up to $300,000 per incident for bodily injury and up to $50,000 for property damage. If the permissive user of the motor vehicle is uninsured or has any insurance with limits less than $500,000 combined property damage and bodily injury liability, the owner shall be liable for up to an additional $500,000 in economic damages only arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. The additional specified liability of the owner for economic damages shall be reduced by amounts actually recovered from the permissive user and from any insurance or self-insurance covering the permissive user. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to affect the liability of the owner for his or her own negligence.

The imposition of owner liability is difficult to overcome. Consider these case examples:

Susco Car Rental Sys. v. Leonard, 112 So.2d at 835, negligence of a person not allowed to drive bound the owner.
Bowman v. Atlanta Baggage & Cab Co., 173 F. Supp. 282 (N.D. Fla. 1969), liability imposed even where driver exceeded stated area limitations.
Tillman Chevrolet co. v. Moore, 175 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), cert. discharged, 184 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1986), owner liable even though accident caused by a hitchiker allowed to drive by a customer convicted of stealing the car.
Ivey v. National Fisheries, Inc. 215 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), employer who permitted a truck driver to use vehicle for delivery only between home and work liable for driving by drinking buddy given truck after worker stopped at bar and became intoxicated.

Rarer is the situation where owner liability is not imposed. Consider:

The vehicle has been stolen. Read the Susco case;
The vehicle has been used without authority by the employee of a facility where the vehicle has been left for repairs. Castillo v. Bickley, 363 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1978);
The title is held for security purposes, as in a conditional sale; or,
Where the title is only intended to be held temporarily, as where a transfer of title is in the process but not completed.

June 5, 2012

Outline of Compensation for “Survivors” Under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Who can be compensated and the types of damages that are available when a person dies through the wrongful act or negligence in Florida of any person or company is prescribed by statute in the “Florida Wrongful Death Act,” sections 768.16 through 768.26. The chart below is a breakdown of section 768.21.

Wrongful Death claims are brought on behalf of statutory “survivors” by the Personal Representative of the decedent’s estate. The Personal Representative, typically a family member and often a survivor, is appointed by the court after due notice is given to all interested parties. The Personal Representative hires the attorney who will bring a claim to recover damages for the decedent’s estate and survivors. Florida wrongful death attorneys handle these cases on a contingent basis, meaning that attorney’s fees are paid only after a successful recovery has been made in the case. The standard within the legal industry is for the fee to be a percentage of the overall recovery, rather than being based on an hourly rate.

Who may recover under the Act and to what extent varies according to the circumstances of each case and can be confusing. There have been many legal challenges to the Act, yet it has survived all challenges essentially intact. At this point in time, it will take action from the Florida Legislature to change the Act.

The goal of this blog is to make the Act understandable. The chart shows the types of damages that can be recovered and by whom. Many of the variations and exceptions are counterintuitive and unfair. For example, a surviving spouse will preclude the recovery of any damages by the decedent’s parents. In addition, the Act gives special consideration to medical providers, in some instances putting them beyond the reach of the law for causing death by medical negligence/malpractice.

Spouse Dies – Surviving Spouse but no Surviving Children
Spouse’s Damages:

Loss of Decendent’s Companionship and Protection
Mental Pain and Suffering from date of injury
Loss of Support and Services from date of injury to date of death (w/ interest)
Future Loss of Support and Services from date of death (at present value)
Medical and Funeral Expenses due to decedent’s injury/death if paid by survivor

Spouse Dies with Surviving Children and Surviving Spouse
Spouse’s Damages:

Loss of Decendent’s Companionship and Protection
Mental Pain and Suffering from date of injury
Loss of Support and Services from date of injury to date of death (w/ interest)
Future Loss of Support and Services from date of death (at present value)
Medical and Funeral Expenses due to decedent’s injury/death if paid by survivor

Children’s Damages:

Loss of Support and Services from date of injury to date of death (w/ interest)
Future Loss of Support and Services from date of death (at present value)
Minor children only (under the age of 25 – Section 768.18(2) Florida Statutes), or all children if there is no surviving spouse, may also recover loss of parental companionship, instruction, and guidance and mental pain and suffering from date of the injury

Parent Dies with Surving Children but no Surviving Spouse
Surviving Children:

Loss of Support and Services from date of injury to date of death (w/interest)
Future Loss of Support and Services from date of death (at present value)
All children may recover loss of parental companionship, instruction, and guidance and mental pain and suffering from date of the injury

June 1, 2012

Potholes and Florida Personal Injury Law

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Must a landowner warn a visitor to the property of an open and obvious pothole? Probably not. Does a landowner have a duty to repair the pothole? Probably.

In Burton v. MDC PGA Plaza Corp., 78 So.3d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), the plaintiff was seriously injured when, while loading a vehicle, she stepped into a pothole, tripped, and fell to the ground. The pothole was approximately one foot wide and two inches deep. The plaintiff conceded that she knew about the pothole before she fell.

Because the plaintiff knew about the pothole before she fell, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not maintain an action against the landowner Defendant MDC or its tenant, CVS. Summary judgment was granted for the defendants.
Continue reading

May 25, 2012

Are Survivors Under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act Truly Immune to Sanctions?

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Little known by most lay people is that every plaintiff involved in litigation, even those who appear to walk away with favorable judgments, may be subject to court sanctions in the form of paying the defendant’s attorneys fees.

The sanction can be imposed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, known as the Proposal for Settlement rule. Under the PFS rule, if the plaintiff refuses a pretrial offer for 25% more than the case is worth, the plaintiff may have to pay the defendant’s attorneys fees incurred from the date of the offer through the trial of the case. (For purposes of this topic, the worth of a case is the amount of the final judgment. A final judgment is not the same thing as a verdict.)

The courts appear to have found an exception to the PFS rule for survivors in cases brought under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act.

In Kadlecik v. Haim, 79 S03d 892 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), the court gave the following explanation for the exception:

Under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act, an estate’s personal representative brings all claims on behalf of both the estate and the decedent’s survivors. §§ 768.16-.26, Fla. Stat. (2010). The personal representative has the exclusive authority to conduct litigation and settle all claims. Thompson v. Hodson, 825 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Pearson v. DeLamerens, 656 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The survivors are not parties to the wrongful death litigation, even when the claims are brought for their benefit. Accordingly, it is error to award attorneys’ fees against the survivors because the personal representative is the only person with authority to settle the claim and the individual survivors cannot be fairly said to have rejected an offer of settlement. See Beseau v. Bhalani, 904 So. 2d 641, 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (holding that entry of judgment against survivor was erroneous as, despite being individually named on complaint, she was not proper party to proceeding); Thompson, 825 So. 2d at 952 (holding that attorneys’ fees cannot be assessed against survivors in wrongful death action based on offer of judgment since personal representative alone has authority to settle and survivors cannot be said to have rejected offer of settlement).

Is the exception foolproof? At least one Florida lawyer, the renowned Dale Swope, of Swope, Rodante, P.A., in Tampa, has doubts. (His article on the subject is contained in the March/April 2012 #559 edition of the Journal, a magazine published for members of the Florida Justice Association.)
Continue reading

May 19, 2012

The “As Is” Doctrine and Florida Personal Injury Law

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Purchasers of used goods, such as appliances and cars, often buy from dealers subject to the condition that the items are being sold “As Is.” Does this provision in a sale agreement insulate the seller from liability for personal injuries caused by a defect? Probably not.

Sellers use “As Is” disclaimers with the intention and expectation of disclaiming all warranties, both express and implied. To be valid, the disclaimers must meet certain requirements such as being written and conspicuousness within the written document.

An “As Is” disclaimer is not an exculpatory clause. An exculpatory clause relieves a party of tort liability. Because exculpatory clauses relieve parties of exercising due care, they are looked upon with disfavor in most states, including Florida. To be enforceable, an exculpatory clause must be so clear and understandable that “an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he is contracting away.”

May 17, 2012

Limited Application of Florida’s Motor Vehicle Accident/Crash Report Privilege

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

To promote the gathering of facts surrounding motor vehicle accidents, the Florida Legislature has devised a number of statutes each with the essential character of compelling certain individuals to disclose information to law enforcement personnel.

Florida Statute 316.066(1) requires a driver to make a report when involved in a crash where there is bodily injury, death, or damage to a vehicle
361.062(1) requires a driver to give his or her information to a police officer upon request when a crash results in injury or death

April 26, 2012

Workers’ Compensation Recovery for Southern Bell/Bellsouth/AT&T Line Workers Damaged by Repetitive Trauma

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

During the past 12 months we have represented a handful of former Southern Bell linemen injured in the course and scope of their employment. Each was hired by Southern Bell (subsequently Bellsouth, now AT&T) in the 1970s to repair and install telecommunication cable. They started working for Southern Bell in their 20s and stayed until being forced by orthopedic conditions to retire in 2010 and later.

Their orthopedic conditions were caused by years of wear and tear from climbing telephone polls while toting heavy equipment and cable. Instead of being allowed to use ladders or hydraulic lifts, the linemen were forced to shimmy the poles like island natives gathering coconuts from tall palm trees. Boot hooks, jammed into the wood poles, kept them from falling.

Our first Southern Bell lineman case involved a 61 year old gentleman who retired after 39 years, done in by bad knees. His orthopedist was recommending total knee replacement surgery.

Common sense and experience told us that his knee problems were job related. Unless there has been acute trauma, like a football injury, repetitive trauma beyond the ordinary is the usual cause for damage of this severity at such a relatively young age. 39 years of pole climbing qualifies as beyond ordinary wear and tear.
Continue reading

April 22, 2012

Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

There are numerous procedural, substantive, and even attitudinal differences in the way civil cases are handled between State and Federal Courts. The differences can determine the outcome of a case.

In many instances, the line is sharp over which court system has jurisdiction, leaving little to no choice over which system will get the case. In others, however, legal maneuvering can dictate where a case will land. It is important, therefore, for lawyers to fully understand the factors that determine the outcome.

Given the significance of the outcome, parties to legal proceedings have always tussled over the jurisdiction issue, spawning a plethora of statutes and case law. Ironically, the many statutes and opinions on the subject have to a degree created more confusion than clarity.
Continue reading

FLORIDA INJURY ATTORNEY BLAWG