personal injury

February 16, 2017

Injured Teen Settles Broward Bus Accident Lawsuit for $850k

Life for a 14-year-old boy and his family was forever altered the day he tried to catch a county bus in Fort Lauderdale.

The teen had been walking to the Broward mass transit bus stop site with his mother when she had a problem with her shoe and fell. She urged him to hurry and catch the bus so he wouldn’t be late. He ran to the side of the large glass doors. A passenger shouted to the driver that there were “runners.” For reasons that aren’t clear, the driver shut the doors, closing in on the teen’s hand. Then, the bus pulled away, dragging the teen alongside and then partially running over him, all while his terrified mother watched and horrified bus passengers could hear his cries.

That was four years ago. Now 18, the boy has graduated from high school, but his life has been forever altered by the severe injuries – including traumatic brain injury – that he suffered that day. He was in a medically-induced coma for a full month. He struggles with neurocognitive disorder. He grapples with depression and central auditory processing disorder, which means he has trouble understanding speech. He also contends with neurospychological impairment in processing speed and memory. His motor dexterity is impaired, and he suffers with a wide range of other physical limitations. Continue reading

February 13, 2017

Negligent Mode of Operation in Slip-and-Fall Cases

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

In Florida slip-and-fall cases, the negligent mode of operation rule was developed initially through common law, later codified in F.S. 768.0710(2), which described the “mode of operation” as a possible cause of action a property owner could face in negligence actions that involved slips and trips on transitory foreign substances on the floor. As the Florida Supreme Court ruled in the 2002 case of Markowitz v. Helen Homes of Kendall Corp., the negligent mode of operation theory centers on the mode of operation used by the property owner, which resulted in the creation of an unsafe condition.

However, that provision was later repealed in 2010 and replaced with F.S. 768.0755, which omitted the “mode of operation” language completely, which defendants have argued means that state courts don’t recognize it anymore. Specifically, they’ll cite the 2015 ruling in Woodman v. Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, decided by the U.S. District Court of for the Middle District of Florida, which granted a defense motion to strike a claim citing negligent mode of operation on the grounds it could not longer serve as a basis for proving premises liability. Still, the state supreme court hasn’t ruled on it as of yet, and plaintiffs continue to assert it as a cause of action in injury complaints, although there is generally no getting around F.S. 768.0755 and the requirement to prove defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition.

Other state courts continue to wrestle with this issue too. Recently in Rhode Island, the state high court weighed a case that involved a woman who slipped on oil and cucumber near a self-serve salad bar section in a grocery store, causing her to suffer serious personal injury. Continue reading

January 31, 2017

Baugh v. Cuprum – $11 Million Ladder Injury Verdict Affirmed

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

An $11 million injury verdict was affirmed recently by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which held there was sufficient evidence plaintiff in Baugh v. Cuprum proved his injury was owed to the defective design of a ladder from which he fell.

Ladder falls are a major problem at American workplaces, but they are also problematic for those off-the-clock as well. Every year, more than 90,000 people are treated in U.S. emergency rooms due to ladder-related injuries. Elevated falls account for 700 work-related deaths every year, which account for 15 percent of all occupational fatalities. The Consumer Product Safety Commission reports ladder-related accidents have increased by 50 percent over the last decade.

Some of the issue involves user error. This could mean using the wrong ladder for the type of task at hand. It could also mean improperly placing the ladder or not using the ladder the right way. It could be the fault of the ladder owner for failure to maintain the ladder or allowing one to be used that is damaged or worn. However, there are also a fair number of these cases that stem from use of ladders that are defectively designed or defectively manufactured. Continue reading

January 3, 2017

Kaplan v. Dutra – Protecting Debtor’s Personal Injury Claims in Bankruptcy

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

Personal bankruptcy filings have been declining in recent years – which is an indicator of national recovery. But there were still 3,440 filed in Florida just in January 2016. Such filing are popular in the first month of the year, when consumers begin to carefully assess their finances after the holidays. Bankruptcy, of course, should be the last and final option for anyone facing financial hardship, as so many personal injury victims do after suffering from severe injuries.

In most situations, people who have obtained a favorable judgment for that personal injury are allowed to claim an exemption to be able to retain those damages, instead of having to dole it out to creditors. However, there could be some variation of this from state-to-state.

In Florida, you can keep the money you get (or will get) as a result of a lawsuit or settlement award – if that money is exempt under state and/or federal statutes. Florida’s personal injury exemption is listed in F.S. 769.05, which protects settlements or awards received if you are injured in a hazardous occupation. The law also allows you to keep up to $1,000 of your own personal property, up to $1,000 of a lawsuit or settlement and up to $4,000 of personal property (which includes a lawsuit or settlement award). Keep in mind that if you have commingled your funds, you may potentially lose your settlement or jury award. A bankruptcy attorney can help you sort this all out, but if you are considering bankruptcy prior to filling a personal injury lawsuit, you may want to discuss this with your injury lawyer to make sure you’ll be able to keep whatever you win. Continue reading

December 21, 2016

Pressure on Wal-Mart to Curb Crime, Keep Shoppers Safe From Injury

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

People shopping for the holidays – or really any time – have an expectation that they’ll be reasonably safe when they go to the store. That means the boxes will be safely stacked, spills will be cleaned up and the walkways cleared of debris or other hazards. It also means that businesses take care to avoid creating a condition that would invite violent crime on customers.

Failure to provide adequate security – whether in the form of armed guards or staff or lighting – is a form of premises liability. That means if you suffer a violent attack while at a shopping center, the store could be responsible to pay you damages. There is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to security, though, and that’s where these cases can get tricky. One of the ways that plaintiffs can prove the store knew or should have known about the risk is by showing a pattern of similar activity in the recent past either on site or nearby or at similar kinds of stores.

Recently, there has been scrutiny on one of the largest retailers in the country to address ongoing problems with crime at it stores that have drained law enforcement resources, bled into neighboring communities and jeopardized the safety of customers. Bloomberg recently chronicled the issue. This time, it’s labor activists pushing for action from the corporation. Specifically, the labor groups want the retailer to improve security in its stores and in its parking lots nationwide. Continue reading

December 2, 2016

Davis v. Baez – Florida Negligence Claim Against School Bus Driver Gets Green Light

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

A horrific school bus crash in Tennessee made international headlines when the driver, ferrying 37 children, strayed from the route and crashed, leaving six children dead and dozens injured. Questions have been raised as to whether the 24-year-old driver intentionally crashed the bus and whether the district should have been aware that he was a possible risk on the road.

The reality is that school bus accidents – especially fatal ones – aren’t all that common. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that between 20004 and 2013, there were 1,214 school-transportation related fatal crashes. Approximately 134 people die in school vehicle-related crashes and about 8 percent of those are actually on the bus. About one-fifth are pedestrians and bicyclists. Most are people in other vehicles.

In the recent Florida case of Davis v. Baez, plaintiff was a student pedestrian who was injured when she was struck by another vehicle while crossing a darkened, busy street early one morning to get to her bus stop. Normally, the school bus driver wouldn’t be liable in a case like this, but the driver – allegedly and against the school district’s policy – instructed students at this particular stop to cross the street and be waiting for him at the bus stop on the east side of the street when he arrived. He told them if they didn’t cross before he got there, he wouldn’t stop to pick them up. However, school policy required that the students be allowed to wait on the east side of the street until the bus arrived, at which time the driver would extend his flashing stop sign to halt traffic in both directions so students could cross safely to the stop. Continue reading

November 25, 2016

Florida Medical Malpractice Damage Caps Again Struck Down on Appeal

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

Another Florida appellate court has struck down a state law that restricts the amount of money that can be awarded for pain-and-suffering in a medical malpractice lawsuit that results in injury. The Florida Supreme Court had already declared that medical malpractice damage caps on such cases resulting in death were not constitutional. However, the question of whether damages could be capped in cases that “only” resulted in injury was left unanswered.

Now, the 2nd District Court of Appeal joined the 4th DCA’s prior opinion, holding that these non-economic damages are also not constitutional. The Florida Supreme Court is still weighing the 4th DCA’s opinion on the issue.

This could result in the biggest change in Florida injury litigation in more than a decade. Two years ago, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in McCall v. U.S. that medical malpractice damage caps – imposed by a 2003 state law under then-Gov. Jeb Bush – were not constitutional in cases where the patient had died. Now, the 2nd DCA has ruled in Port Charlotte HMA v. Suarez that the same is true when the patient survives medical negligence. This backs the findings of the 4th DCA in North Broward Hospital District v. Kalitan. Continue reading

November 14, 2016

Anderson v. Hilton Hotels Corp. – Florida Supreme Court Weighs Right to Attorney Fees for Injury Plaintiff

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

A man who successfully sued a hotel chain and several other defendants for third-party liability stemming from a criminal attack at a hotel has now won another victory for attorney’s fees before the Florida Supreme Court.

At issue was F.S. 768.79 and whether a trio of defendants – named as one entity in jury instructions – received sufficient offers of settlement to trigger the requirement that they cover plaintiff’s lawyer fees.

The statute allows that if an offer of settlement is made (by either side) and isn’t accepted within 30 days and the matter then goes to trial and is decided in favor of the opposite party (at least 25 percent less than the offer made by a defendant or 25 percent more for an offer made by plaintiff), the losing side has to pay the attorney’s fees of the other party. The goal is to encourage litigants to accept reasonable offers and thus reduce the time and expense of a trial. (It should be noted that most civil injury lawyers accept cases on a contingency fee basis, which means they are only paid a percentage of your total damage awards if you win, but nothing if you don’t win. An award of attorney’s fees means your financial obligation to your lawyer wouldn’t be taken out of your final damage award.) Continue reading

November 11, 2016

Motorcycle Riders in Construction Zones Face Hazards

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

Community growth can be seen in almost every area in South Florida. This growth means we need to expand our roads, update our bridges and install new traffic features. All of this involves construction as a near constant element of our commute. For motorcyclists, riding in construction zones can be especially hazardous.

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, there were approximately 68,000 collisions reported in work zones nationwide. A higher proportion of fatal work zone crashes occur on the interstates, followed by urban arterials. Motorcyclists in construction zones have to continuously scan for debris, milled road surfaces, steel plates, loose gravel, road sealants and other dangers that could result in an edge trap (a sudden cut or drop in the road that might catch the tire of the bike).

We’re seeing more of these instances as construction picks up and we have more people riding motorcycles than ever before. The Federal Highway Pavement Monitoring System reports there was a 90 percent uptick in motorcycle registrations between 1997 and 2007, and motorcycle crashes overall make up an increasing percent of roadway fatalities and serious injuries. Just recently, a motorcyclist critically hurt in a construction zone settled his lawsuit against the state DOT, its construction contractor and a dump truck driver for $18.5 million. Continue reading

October 20, 2016

Finch v. Thurston County – Dog Bite Injury Strict Liability Exceptions

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

Dog bite injuries in Florida are handled under a legal theory known as “strict liability.” What this means is, according to F.S.767.04, a dog owner may be liable if his or her dog bites someone – even if that dog had no history of any vicious behavior and even if owner had no prior warning or knowledge the dog might bite. The injured person does not have to prove the owner’s failure to use reasonable care played any sort of role in causing the bite. Rather, they must show the defendant owned/ controlled the dog, the dog bit the victim, that bite caused injury to victim.

There are, however, a few exceptions to the rule. Those include:

The person who was bitten was not lawfully in the place where the bite occurred. (In other words, he/she was trespassing.)
Comparative negligence. This asserts the dog bite victim’s own negligence was partially to blame for causing the bite. This generally doesn’t apply to children under the age of 6.