by

I have blogged previously on various topics pertaining to premises liability law (open & obvious doctrine; slip & fall; dog bites; and natural conditions. One topic about which I have not written is negligent security.

Negligent security cases involve harm to residents, guests, patrons and the like through the conduct of a bad actor such as a rapist or a mugger.

One of my previous blogs addresses the general principles of Florida law regarding landowner liability for accidents or events that occur on their property. For the most part, every commercial property owner owes some duty of care to those who enter their property, with the level of care being defined by a particular individual’s status on the property (e.g., invitee, invited licensee, uninvited licensee, trespasser). These general principles apply to negligent security cases.

Sadly, rapes and assaults at commercial locations like malls and apartment complexes are events all too common in Florida. Of course, some of these crimes cannot be prevented. However, many could be deterred through reasonable security measures such as improved lighting, beefed up security, video cameras, and eliminating secluded areas.
Continue reading

by

I am a member of the Florida Justice Association (FJA), a Tallahassee-based organization dedicated to strengthening and upholding Florida’s civil justice system and protecting the rights of Florida’s citizens and consumers. Within the organization is an Internet discussion group, of which I have been a member for more than ten years, consisting of a sub-group of lawyers who only represent Plaintiffs/Claimants. In other words, no defense attorneys are allowed access to this discussion group. The group discusses legal issues concerning the rights of individuals within the context of the civil justice system. It is an invaluable resource.

Many of my blogs discuss the dangers facing Florida’s civil justice system. Among the specific topics discussed regarding the larger issue deal with what is referred to in Florida as the crashworthiness or enhanced injury doctrine. (Blogs 1, 2, and 3.) I have warned that this important consumer safety law was in danger of being eliminated by Rick Scott and Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature. Well, in just day two of the Rick Scott administration, the doctrine is under assault and, given the Republican numbers, likely to be killed.

Given the importance of the doctrine to the safety and well-being of people in Florida, this assault on the doctrine is a hot topic of discussion on the FJA’s Internet discussion board. I found one post particularly enlightening and have decided to post it here (slightly edited). The author is Florida Attorney Rich Newsome.

*****************************************
This coming Tuesday afternoon, the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Anitere Flores, will take up an anti-consumer bill involving automobile safety. This bill is being spearheaded by Ford Motor Company and if passed, will have huge consequences for consumers who are maimed and killed by defective cars. (Blogger’s note: In 2009, Ms. Flores introduced and shepherded workers’ compensation legislation that has resulted in the drastic curtailment of the ability of injured workers to obtain benefits. The legislation is in the process of being appealed as unconstitutional to the Florida Supreme Court.)
Continue reading

by

Florida police departments are not immune from employing a few bad apples. Occasionally, we learn of a law enforcement officer taking advantage of a vulnerable woman while in uniform during working hours. When such a vile event occurs, the legal question arises as to whether or not the offending officer’s agency must bear civil (as opposed to criminal) responsibility for the officer’s actions. The obvious reaction would seem to be, Yes, of course!!! Unfortunately, the reality is not so simple.

Florida employers may be held liable for the intentional actions of their employees under two legal principles: (1) Negligent hiring. Where the employer knew or should have known prior to hiring that the potential employee was of unfit character, but hired anyway; and (2) Negligent retention. When the employer knew or should have known after hire of an employee’s unfit character, but fails to terminate or modify the employment responsibilities.

However, merely establishing one or both of these principles is not enough. The victim must also show that (1) the unfit character of which the employer knew or should have known had some reasonable relationship to the bad acts committed; and (2) the bad acts were initiated in the course and scope of employment and to serve the interests of the employer.

One of the leading cases in Florida regarding this topic is Tallahassee Furniture Co., Inc. v. Harrison, 583 So.2d 744 (Fla. App. 1 Dist., 1991). Tallahassee Furniture’s employee was hired to deliver furniture to customers’ homes. More than one month after making a delivery, he returned to a female customer’s home and raped her. The young victim sued the employer, Tallahassee Furniture, for negligent hiring and retention.
Continue reading

by

worker.jpgThe question often arises in Florida as to whether undocumented workers can be compensated for lost wages (past and future) in personal injury and workers’ compensation cases. With few exceptions, the answer appears to be No.

Although the damages available in workers’ compensation and personal injury cases may differ, both offer elements of awards for lost wages. Proving entitlement requires showing that the lost wages are related to the injuries. However, the employer (wc) and defendant (pi) may nullify the proof by establishing that the claimant is prohibited from working in the United States due to immigration issues. In other words, an immigrant who is not authorized to work in the United States, cannot be compensated under Florida law for lost income resulting from an accident.

The two primary exceptions in workers’ compensation cases are (1) the employee is totally, as opposed to partially, unable to work because of his injuries, and (2) the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s status as an unauthorized alien prior to the disabling accident. (The law of Florida does not impose on an employer the burden of verifying forged or borrowed green cards – Florida Statute 448.09 – nor is there any such federal requirement.)
Continue reading

by

In installment #1 of this series of blogs addressing the myth regarding frivolous lawsuits, I tried to debunk the myth through common sense by noting some of the practical considerations that make handling baseless cases untenable for lawyers. In other words, practical considerations alone work against the notion that frivolous lawsuits are a staple of the legal system.

In this blog, I will try to debunk the myth further by discussing actual laws and rules that are designed to eliminate and prevent baseless lawsuits.

Very few cases are not defended. Those not defended typically involve parties who are without money or insurance to mount a defense or pay a judgment, making it a complete waste of time and money bothering to obtain the judgment. Anyone bringing suit against such a defendant may end up with a piece of paper, the final judgment, establishing that money is owed. That piece of paper and $1.00 will get the owner of the final judgment a cup of coffee. In other words, in most instances the final judgment is worthless.
Continue reading

by

Many scenarios arise that bring into question the applicability of Florida’s workers’ compensation system for accidents that occur in other states. The general rule is that a worker injured outside of the state is eligible for Florida’s workers’ compensation benefits if:

(1) The employer and the employee entered the contract of employment in Florida; or (2) If the principal location of the employment is in Florida.

(Only one of the two elements must be met, not both.)

The statutory language, located at 440.09(1)(d), reads as follows: “If an accident happens while the employee is employed elsewhere than in this state, which would entitle the employee or his or her dependents to compensation if it had happened in this state, the employee or his or her dependents are entitled to compensation if the contract of employment was made in this state, or the employment was principally localized in this state. However, if an employee receives compensation or damages under the laws of any other state, the total compensation for the injury may not be greater than is provided in this chapter.”
Continue reading

by

I agree with the observations, reproduced below, of one Harry Rosenzweig, whose letter was published by The Miami Herald on 12/19/10:

DISLOYAL OPPOSITION

Blaming President Obama for the financial crisis and deficit is delusional propoganda. He inherited this mess and saved us from a far deeper crisis. Further, it is the stated purpose of the “disloyal” opposition to stonewall Obama toward a failed presidency, nation be damned, in their effort to return to political power and the fox-in-the-henhouse policies that brought us to the brink. We are careening toward a government of, by and for the largest corporations and the wealthy. It’s a tragic and concerted effort to destroy our once great nation.
Continue reading

by

From time to time, I will list in this blog recent important information regarding manufactured products used by American consumers. Today’s entries:

Darvocet and Darvon: Popular prescription pain medications, go by the generic name propoxyphene. FDA studies show that the drug puts patients at risk of potentially serious or even fatal heart rhythm abnormalities. Propoxyphene is an opoid. Safety concerns were raised as early as 1978. Warnings were placed on boxes in 2009 of the dangers of overdoses. Now, the manufacturer, Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has agreed to withdraw the drug from the U.S. market.

DePuy Hip Replacement Parts: Some component parts in the DePuy Hip replacement system are feared to be the cause of a high rate of repeat surgies in those who have received the parts. Johnson & Johnson and DePuy Orthopaedics, its subsidiary, have announced that it is recalling the parts.

EBIce Cold Therapy: This is a cryo-therapy (“Cold Therapy”) device typically prescribed by orthopedists and podiatrists after a surgical procedure. Poor use instructions have resulted in serious nerve and skin damage similar to frost bite.

Fosomax: Manufactured by Mreck, this is a class of drugs called bisphosphonates. It is commonly used in tablet form to prevent and treat osteoporosis in post-menopausal woman. The Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons recently reported a link between bisphosphonates and serious bonce disease called Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (ONJ), a disfiguring and disabling condition of the jaw bone that causes infection and rotting of the jaw bone.
Continue reading

by

Without knowing any better, one might believe that most lawsuits are frivolous. This is a popular message in American society spread through ignorance and deceit. The truth reveals a different reality.

Through my blog, I will attempt to debunk through facts and reason this false notion regarding lawsuits. It will be undertaken in multiple installments.

The first thing to understand is that, for the past 30 years, big business has made a concerted effort to undermine the integrity of the civil justice system. The reason why is simple: Profits over people.

The civil justice system is the best vehicle an individual in our society has of holding a much stronger corporation accountable for wrongdoing. When the system works as designed by our Founding Fathers, powerful companies can be made to answer to judges and, more importantly, jurors.

Not happy with being held accountable, big business has undertaken a campaign to undermine the integrity of the civil justice system. In addition to the creation of laws making it more difficult for individuals to pursue claims, big business has developed a successful propoganda machine designed to pollute the minds of our citizenry against individuals who bring claims against companies.

Hardly an adult in America has not heard the expression “Frivolous Lawsuit.” Unfortunately, nearly every potential juror has been tainted with the false concept, some of whom are downright hostile against individuals who would sue a company. It a classic counter intuitive response: Everday Americans reflexively siding with big business over “We, the People.” Sad but true.

Big business is patting itself on the back for successfully turning individuals against their own best interests. They are laughing at you and me for being such fools.

In Florida, the minimum cost to file and serve a lawsuit on a single party is nearly $500. $500 is $500, not small change to most people, especially nowadays, including lawyers and law firms. Add in the fixed costs of rent, supplies, and salaries and the cost of filing a lawsuit approaches upwards of $1,500-$2,000. (This does not include, for example, the requirement in medical malpractice cases of obtaining an expert opinion before filing suit, which, depending on the complexity and seriousness of the case, can easily cost more than $5,000, or the practical need in other cases to obtain an expert’s knowledge before filing suit.)

The point is, it takes a significant amount of time, energy, and money to get a case off the ground. This is all without any guarantee whatsoever of being paid penny one in the case, even the strongest case. That’s right, contrary to the false ideas spread by the propogandists and those who have been duped into believing their garbage, the mere fact of filing a lawsuit does not assure a recovery. What it does guarantee is a knock-down, drag-out fight. I liken the consequence of filing a lawsuit to being on the back of an angry bull as it leaves the cage with the sole intent of bucking the rider off its back. Hold on tight and expect a rough ride.

Given the significant initial expense of filing suit and the uncertainty of success, does it make sense that lawyers make a practice of filing baseless (i.e., “frivolous”) claims? Not in the common sense world in which I try to live.

Stay tuned for more installments.
Continue reading

by

Florida’s workers’ compensation system contains many different types of wage loss benefits. Each is unique in scope and character. They are:

  • Temporary total disability (TTD; 440.15(2)): Unable to work prior to maximum medical improvement (MMI)
  • Temporary partial disability (TPD; 440.15(4)): Able to work with restrictions
  • Impairment benefits (IB): Based on medical impairment rating upon reaching MMI
  • Permanent Total Disability (PTD; 440.15(1)): Unable to perform substantial gainful employment after reaching MMI. (See blog.)
  • Retraining: While being retrained in a certified program. (440.491) (See blog.)

Other monetary benefits that may be available to injured workers include:

If you have questions about any of these benefits, contact our office for a free, confidential consultation.
Continue reading

Contact Information
Main Office
9999 NE 2nd Ave, #304
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Phone: 305-758-4900
Fax: 305-758-4949
Email: jgale@jeffgalelaw.com
Palm Beach Gardens
2401 PGA Blvd #140
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Phone: 305-758-4900
Fax: 305-758-4949
Email: jgale@jeffgalelaw.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design