by

auto accident.jpg

  • Contact fire rescue (for injuries) and the police from the accident scene.
  • Take photographs of the vehicles – damage and location.
  • Photograph visible injuries.
  • Obtain names and contact information of independent eyewitnesses.
  • Cooperate with law enforcement. Describe the accident and provide your motor vehicle insurance information.
  • Before leaving the scene, obtain a copy of the short form police report or other police report identifying information.
  • If your vehicle must be towed from the accident, determine by whom and to where. Remove personal belongings before the vehicle is towed away.
  • If necessary, allow fire rescue to transport you to the hospital.
  • Provide fire rescue and the hospital with your vehicle and health insurance information.(The “PIP” coverage under your own insurance policy is primarily responsible for paying for a limited dollar amount of your medical care.)
  • Report the accident to your insurance company.
  • Obtain claim number from your insurance carrier.
  • If necessary, seek follow up medical care.
  • Provide medical providers with your vehicle and health insurance information.
  • The at-fault party’s Florida insurance company should pay for your vehicle damage. In some instances, it is easier to have your own insurance company handle the repairs. However, not every insurance policy covers the cost of such repairs. It is not required coverage. Check your policy to see if you have “Collision” coverage. (Be careful of what you say to the at-fault party’s insurance company. The company will be looking for ways to deny your claim.)
  • If your injuries are serious, contact a personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. The lawyer will handle a myriad of issues associated with your accident, including medical matters, insurance coverage, vehicle repair or total loss payments, etc.

    • Continue reading

by

The standard in Florida for determining fault for injuries caused by harmful substances in food is known as the “reasonable expectation” test. Examples of harmful substances include bones, shells, and pits, not only substances completely foreign to food products such as metal, human nails, and bugs.

Obviously, claims resulting from foreign objects are easier to win than claims involving substances natural to the basic food product, but the “reasonable expectation” test nevertheless provides a basis for prevailing in the latter situation.

Not every jurisdiction within the United States follows the “reasonable expectation” test. Some jurisdictions represent the view that as a matter of law a harmful substance present in food which is natural to it cannot be common law negligence or a legal defect or breach of the implied warranty of reasonable fitness of such food. Florida has rejected this test as not being logical or desirable. Zabner v. Howard Johnson’s, Inc., 201 So.2d 824 (Fla. App. 4 Dist., 1967).
Continue reading

by

To the surprise of many, Florida employees justly terminated from their jobs may nevertheless be entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits. In other words, although an employee’s actions may justify discharge, the same conduct does not necessarily preclude entitlement to unemployment benefits. Betancourt v. Sun Bank Miami, N.A., 672 So.2d 37 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1996).

For Unemployment Compensation benefits to be denied, an employee’s behavior must rise to the level of “misconduct,” defined as acting willfully, wantonly, or be in substantial disregard of the employer’s interest. See §§ 443.036(29), and 443.101, Fla. Stat.
Continue reading

by

Along with the right to vote, a free and vigorous jury system is a key element in the ability of Americans to control the type of society in which they live. Efforts by state and federal politicians at placing arbitrary caps on the amount of damages available to parties in civil cases is a direct attack on the jury system, and thus the power of the citizenry to control their own society.

Juries should be allowed to award the full measure of damages justified by the facts of each case after engaging in thoughtful deliberations. For the most part, their verdicts are dead-on appropriate. To argue otherwise is to ignore a large body of statistical evidence and question the ability of everyday people to judge wisely. Moreover, in those rare instances where a jury decides incorrectly, the aggrieved parties, be they the plaintiffs or the defendants, have available to them many tools (e.g. retrial; appeal; etc.) to correct the error.

Arbitrary damage award caps provide immunity from full accountability and should be opposed. Our civil jury system works exceedingly well and should remain free of arbitrary constraints.
Continue reading

by

Exemptions are so common in FLSA cases that practitioners accepting new cases are wise to consider the possibility in all but the most obvious situations. Along with determining the amount of overtime hours, if any, logged by employees, disputes over the applicability or not of exemptions have formed the lion share of litigation in the FLSA cases handled in my office.

Common exemptions include (typically, salaried employees):

  • Executives
  • Administrators
  • Professional
  • Outside sales workers
  • Some computer workers

Knowing the case law is a must, but can be frustrating and confusing as the decisions, both regarding factual patterns and legal pronouncements, run the gamut. In some cases, the practitioner is unable to make a clear determination. In those instances, instinct is often the best judge of whether or not a case should be pursued.
Continue reading

by

It is both a crime (3rd degree felony – Section 934.03(4) Florida Statutes), and an actionable civil violation (934.10) to record phone calls in Florida without the prior consent of the party or parties being recorded.

Exceptions do apply, see Cohen Brothers, LLC v. ME Corp., S.A., 872 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3DCA 2004), Jatar v. Lamaletto, 758 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 3DCA 2000), cause dismissed 786 So.2d 1186, and Stevenson v. State, 667 So.2d 410 (Fla 1DCA 1996), rehearing denied, but the general rule is that non-consensual recordings are prohibited.
Continue reading

by

Unlike prior PIP statutes that applied the “usual and customary” standard to determine allowable charges for medical services, Florida’s 2008 version (627.736), mostly mandates that allowable charges are 200% of prospective payments for the same services under Medicare Parts A & B. (Main exceptions: emergency transportation and emergency hospital services.)

For the most part, the Medicare tie-in reduces the amounts payable to medical providers, and because the PIP statute also explicity prohibits medical providers from balance billing beyond the 20% remaining after PIP’s 80% payment of allowable charges (627.736(5)(a)5.), the Plaintiff’s (patient) out-of-pocket medical expenses are likewise reduced. No longer may a medical provider seek full reimbursement from the patient for charges unpaid after the receipt of PIP payments. Doing so under the 2008 PIP statute is an actionable offense.
Continue reading

by

In December, 2008, the Florida Supreme Court, in Kirton v. Fields, 997 So.2d 349 (Fla., 2008), held that a pre-injury release executed by a parent on behalf of a minor child is unenforceable against the minor or the minor’s estate in a tort action arising from injuries resulting from participation in a commercial activity.

In Kirton, 14 year old Christopher Jones died in an ATV crash at a motorsports park. Prior to the crash, his father had signed a release and waiver of liability, assumption of risk, and indemnity agreement to allow his son to ride at the park. Subsequently, Fields, as personal representative of the estate of Christopher Jones, filed suit for wrongful death against Spencer Kirton, Scott Corey Kirton, Dudley Kirton, and the Kirton Brother Lawn Service, Inc. (“the Kirtons”) as owners and operators of Thunder Cross Motor Sports. The trial court entered an order granting the Kirtons’ motion for summary judgment on the wrongful death claim, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact because the release executed by Mr. Jones on behalf of his minor child, Christopher, barred the claim. On appeal, the Fourth District reversed the trial court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment. The Florida Supreme Court’s majority opinon – one dissent (Wells, J) and two non-participants (Canady and Polston, JJ) – resulted from an appeal of the 4th DCA’s decision.
Continue reading

by

law books.jpgFlorida Statues may allow PIP carriers to conduct medical examinations and perform paper reviews, but no authority, including the statute itself, grants PIP carriers license to reference those procedures as an “IME,” “Independent Medical Examination,” or a “Peer Review.” In short, PIP carriers have created the terms out of whole cloth to mislead juries.

The doctors are not independent or conducting peer reviews. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s only definition of “peer review” is: a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field.) They are hired by the defense and paid by the defense. If the jury hears that doctors are “independent” or a “Peer Review,” the jury may be confused into believing or thinking the doctors were appointed by the court, a governing body, or with the approval of the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s attorney.

When preparing for trial, the Plaintiff’s attorney should consider moving the court for an In Limine order preventing the insurance company from perpetuating the falsehood.
Continue reading

by

A well-established common law principle in Florida is that motor vehicles are “dangerous instrumentalities.” Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 86 So. 629 (Fla. 1920). In 1941, the Florida Supreme Court held that because the use of a dangerous instrumentality involves such a high degree of risk of serious injury or death, whoever deals in such instrumentalities must exercise the “highest degree of care.” Skinner v. Ochiltree, 5 So.2d 605 (1941). This decree is consistent with the court’s opinion that “as the risk grows greater, so does the duty, because the risk to be perceived defines the duty that must be undertaken.” McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla. 1992).

Until 2005, this longstanding and reasonable principle of law applied to both individual private vehicle owners and billion dollar rental car agencies alike. However, with the passage into law of the Graves Amendment, the U.S. Congress and the Bush Administration (George W. Bush), allowed rental car agencies across the country to escape liability for serious personal injuries caused by their rental vehicles.

The constitutionality of the law is being challenged in courts across the nation. One of the main arguments in opposition to the federal law is that the individual states should be allowed to create laws that effect its own residents. The constitutionality issue will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

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