Articles Posted in Car Accidents

For some, it rattles the conscience to think a drunk driver or his survivors could sue someone else for his involvement in a crash.

However, there are some instances where the argument for this is legally sound. Some cases may involve Florida Dram Shop laws. In other instances, it may be rooted in a simple theory of general negligence.

In any case, an injured driver who was impaired at the time of a crash is going to face an uphill battle to prove the cause of the crash and to limit his own personal liability for what happened.

Our experienced Fort Lauderdale DUI injury lawyers know such claims are going to be complex and require the assistance of an experienced legal team.

One of the scenarios in which such an assertion can make good legal sense is if the impaired driver did not cause the crash. It may not be the most common situation, but it is possible. One example might be if an impaired driver is struck by someone who runs a stop sign. Or perhaps the other driver is impaired too.

The bottom line in these cases is a person is not barred from recovery of personal injury damages in Florida simply because he or she was intoxicated. What will likely come into play is the issue of comparative fault. F.S. 768.81 outlines comparative fault. It grants an injured person the ability to recover damages from someone else, even if the injured person shared part of the blame for what happened. The degree of comparative fault will then be factored in to the ultimate amount of compensation, if plaintiff is successful.

So for example, that impaired driver struck by the stop sign runner: If he wins at trial and the jury awards him $200,000, but the jury assigns him 40 percent comparative fault, he’s only going to be able to collect $120,000 in damages.

Other cases brought by drunk drivers may include the Florida dram shop statute, codified in F.S. 768.125. The law says third parties who legally supply alcohol to someone can’t be held responsible for injury that person causes as a result of consuming that alcohol. Exceptions are made, however, when the seller furnishes alcohol to someone who is either underage or known to be habitually addicted to alcohol.

Usually, this law is used by victims of drunk drivers to file action against the bar who supplied the at-fault driver alcohol. But in Florida, it can sometimes be used by the impaired driver to pursue damages. For example, if an underage driver is served an excessive amount of alcohol and is subsequently injured in a crash, he or she may have grounds to sue the bar as well.

Some states expressly forbid this kind of recovery. In Georgia, for example, the state’s dram shop law specifically states an impaired driver can’t collect damages from the person or entity that furnished the drinks. This was recently reaffirmed in Dion v. Y.S.G. Enterprises, Inc., a case before the Georgia Supreme Court. There, the court ruled the widow of a drunk driver who was served alcohol for eight hours straight – even after he was visibly intoxicated, as forbidden by law – could not succeed in a lawsuit against the bar because of the provisions in state dram shop law.

In Florida, however, it continues to be worthwhile for all injured crash victims to explore legal options with an experienced attorney.
Continue reading

As the international recall on Japanese-made Takata airbags widens, a Miami-Dade woman has filed her own lawsuit, alleging defective airbags left her with lifelong scarring – and nearly killed her.

It’s true there is rarely such thing as a “normal” accident. After all, crashes are rarely anticipated, and the unexpected is what often makes the situation so bad. But we expect in these situations that airbags, upon impact, will protect us.

What regulators are now finding is that in an increasing number of cases, defective airbags in fact made the situation far worse.
Continue reading

The determination of who owns a vehicle and/or who has permission to drive it is a key in the wake of a crash.

Answers to those questions will help your attorney figure out which insurance claims to pursue and what kind of coverage to which you may be entitled.

Often, the answers to these questions are relatively easy. Other times, they can be far more complex. An example of the latter was seen recently in the Indiana Court of Appeals case of Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Foster.
Continue reading

In most bad faith claims against auto insurers, the “bad faith” lawsuit is filed separately from the liability portion, lest it be deemed premature and dismissed.

However, in the recent case of Safeco Insurance Co. v. Beare, plaintiff counsel amended the original third-party complaint alleging liability for a crash to include her own insurer as a defendant for failure to pay uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits.

Injury attorneys are more frequently employing this strategy, as it saves plaintiffs the trouble of having to refile the case. The recent decision in Beare, handed down by Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, allows that unripe bad faith claims can simply be abated (rather than dismissed) until the outcome of the liability action is determined.
Continue reading

An allegedly false statement by an auto insurance agent regarding stacked underinsured motorist (UM) coverage is at the center of a personal injury case before Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal.

Although other elements of the claim have been dismissed and affirmed on appeal, allowed to proceed is the question of whether this misrepresentation should mean the insured’s injured son is entitled to double the UM coverage stated in the policy.

Our Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers know issues of negligent misrepresentation are generally rare in these cases, so it will be interesting to see what ultimate conclusion is reached. If nothing else, the case of Gallon v. GEICO illustrates why it’s not uncommon to need an attorney when dealing with auto insurance companies.
Continue reading

A Florida appellate court has ruled an auto insurance company for an elderly man who lied about his competency as a driver in deposition testimony following a crash will have to pay sanctions imposed by the trial court for those misrepresentations.

Our Fort Lauderdale car accident injury lawyers understand this might not have been the case had the insurer acted more expeditiously in its response to the revelation the driver had lied.

According to court records in GEICO v. Rodriguez, the 83-year-old insured had his auto insurance renewed in November 2005. The policy allowed for a bodily injury coverage limit of $10,000 per person and $20,000 per occurrence (which is the bare minimum coverage). The policy additionally allowed for the insurance company to pay all defense costs in the event of a covered crash.
Continue reading

One of the many ways car insurance companies seek to limit the amount they have to pay in claims is with fine print that includes so-called “step-down provisions.” These are clauses that limit the amount of money available to be paid in certain circumstances.

While the language may vary from policy to policy, in a family step-down provision, the insurance company will limit the amount payable to the insured’s family members. These would be individuals who would otherwise be covered, but because of their familial relationship to the policy holder, can only receive the state’s statutory minimum in personal injury protection. It’s essentially a “step down” from what they would otherwise receive.

So for example, a child injured due to his father’s negligent operation of a vehicle would only be able to collect a maximum of $10,000 in damages, even if his parent had an auto insurance policy that he believed covered the child for up to $100,000. The insurer would cite the family step-down exclusion.

Our Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers know Florida is one of a handful of states that still recognize this provision as not running contrary to public policy (that is, against the public good). So long as the policy language isn’t ambiguous, it’s likely the family step-down provision will be upheld. However, recent case law in other jurisdictions indicates there could soon be a shift in the legal landscape.
Continue reading

The long Labor Day weekend is synonymous with outdoor barbeques, beaches, boats – and an uptick in fatalities attributed to drunken driving and impaired boating.

Without fail, our Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers have noted there are always revelers who will take it too far. We might expect a higher-than-usual number of injuries and fatalities, given the reduced price of gasoline this summer. That means more people will be taking longer trips, and boaters will be out on the water for longer.

As they have always done this time of year, law enforcement will be heavily patrolling the roadways, on the lookout for drivers who are impaired or otherwise acting aggressively or recklessly. And as usual, they will be patrolling the waterways as well. However, the enforcement on the latter front may be a bit heavier than in years’ past, in light of the horrific Fourth of July boating crash that killed four people and injured several others on the Biscayne Bay. Officials are desperate to avoid a repeat.
Continue reading

In personal injury cases, plaintiff’s degree of fault in the incident can impact the size of damages awarded and, in some states, preclude an injured party from receiving anything at all.

Our Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers know Florida follows the pure comparative negligence model. It’s one of the models that most favors injured parties, and holds that even when a plaintiff is at fault to some degree, he or she can still recover damages, minus the degree of fault. So if the defendant driver is found to be 65 percent at fault for the crash and the plaintiff 35 percent, the plaintiff will only be allowed to collect 65 percent of the damages claimed.

Determining the degree of fault of a defendant is a question for the jury, and one reason why it’s important to have an experienced lawyer to litigate your case.
Continue reading

In many Florida personal injury cases, either side may request a plaintiff undergo a compulsory medical exam. This is a medical exam conducted to establish or refute arguments made by the opposing side.

Our Fort Lauderdale personal injury lawyers know that while courts often grant these requests, they are not permitted to do so unless good cause has been shown and the parameters are clearly outlined. The exam has to involve a matter that is “in controversy” in the case. That is, it involves a key point that is critical to the requesting side’s position.

This issue was recently before two separate appellate courts in different cases, with one court denying the request and another choosing to narrow it significantly.
Continue reading