FLORIDA INJURY ATTORNEY BLAWG

Prior to 1990, Florida employers had a common law qualified privilege to discuss current and former employees with prospective employers. The leading case was Nadar v. Galbreath, 462 So.2d 803 (Fla. 1984). For an employee to overcome the privilege, and thus hold the employer liable for defamation or intentional interference with a business relationship, proof was required that the false information was made with express malice – not to be confused with “actual malice,” the standard applicable to claims against public officials or public figures – described as “where the primary motive for the statement is shown to be an intention to injure the plaintiff.” Nadar, 462 @ 806 (citing Loeb v. Geronemus, 66 So.2d 241 (Fla. 1953). This common law standard needed to be shown by a preponderance of the evidence.

Florida Statute 768.095 appears to have superseded the common law. (The case law handed down since the enactment of 768.095 is somewhat confusing on the interplay, if any, between the statute and the common law.)
Continue reading

The Republican Establishment has chosen Willard Mitt Romney to lead its people to The Promised Land. It points to his success in making large sums of money as the primary qualifying factor for the selection.

G-d chose Moses to lead the Jews to their Promised Land. Interestingly, what persuaded G-d to select Moses was his compassion more than his accomplishments.

The Book of Exodus tells us that Moses was rescued from the Nile River as an infant and raised by the Pharoah’s daughter. One day he witnessed an Egyptian beating a Jew. He killed the Egyptian. Later he intervened in a fight between two Jews, the circumstances of which forced him to flee Egypt. While in the desert, he saved the seven daughters of Jethro from evil shepherds.

These acts showed perseverance, courage and fortitude. This was not enough for G-d.
Continue reading

Most freedom-loving Americans believe that intelligence, skill, character, and temperament are the most important qualities of a judge. Not so Florida Governor Rick Scott. Ideology is what matters most to this governor … right-wing ideology at that.

In a blatant effort to subvert a free-acting judiciary, Governor Scott is seeking to change the way judge’s are selected in Florida. He is pushing legislation that will remove the selection process from the hands of independent groups and give it to the governor. Shocking.

Reproduced below is a Letter to the Editor published in today’s Miami Herald which touches nicely on the subject:
******************************
Keep Florida’s judiciary independent
 
There’s a challenge afoot this legislative session for Florida Bar Association President Scott G. Hawkins and the Bar’s board members: To protect Florida’s justice system from a force that, if left unchecked, would eviscerate it.

Gov. Rick Scott plans to completely overtake Judicial Nominating Committee appointments. The governor has stated he would like to move all JNC appointments to the Office of the Governor, rejecting the time-honored and traditional input of the Florida Bar. This would amount to the biggest judicial power grab in Florida’s history.

Don’t be fooled by the promises and rhetoric: This is not about the philosophical belief that Florida would have a stronger, more independent judiciary if picked exclusively by the executive branch. Gov. Scott has an agenda for “his” judiciary.
Continue reading

Arbitration has become the procedural remedy of choice for the business community in almost every type of civil dispute, from employment matters to nursing home negligence. Arbitration involves the resolution of civil disputes by a panel of costly private arbitrators rather than by government-paid judges and citizen jurors. If for no other reason than that arbitration abrogates the jury system, it is generally looked upon with disfavor by lawyers who represent plaintiffs in civil disputes.

Whether a dispute is arbitrated is a matter of agreement between the parties. Typically, the agreement is made at the outset of the relationship. For example, in the context of nursing homes, the arbitration agreement will be part of the package of admission documents. It is not unusual for the individual to such an agreement to be unaware of the provision or feel like he or she has no choice in the matter, a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.

Courts generally favor arbitration agreements, Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Saldukas, 896 So. 2d 707, 711 (Fla. 2005), but such agreements are subject to state law contract defenses such as unconscionability, Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Petsch, 872 So. 2d 259, 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). To succeed in an unconscionability argument, both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be shown. Bland, ex rel. Coker v. Health Care & Ret. Corp. of Am., 927 So. 2d 252, 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
Continue reading