personal injury attorney

April 3, 2017

FHP Launches Program to Help Solve Hit-and-Run Crash Cases

The Florida Highway Patrol is starting a new effort to solve hit-and-run crash cases and compel drivers involved in collisions to remain on scene.

It’s a major problem in the Sunshine State, where more than 99,000 hit-and-run accidents were reported just last year. That is fully one quarter of the total number of crashes, law enforcement officials say. Yet it only accounted for 15,900 of the charges filed last year. Mostly, that’s because the at-fault driver(s) took off and were never found.

In Broward County alone, the Sun Sentinel reports, 14 people were killed and 119 injured in the approximately 12,000 hit-and-run crashes in 2016. Palm Beach County officials, meanwhile, logged 8,000 hit-and-run crashes there resulting in a dozen deaths and 102 injuries. In Miami-Dade County, it was reported there were 19,000 hit-and-run crashes resulting in 20 deaths and nearly 150 injuries. Continue reading

March 19, 2017

Injury Claims Against the Government Raise Challenges

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

In Florida, as in all states, if you are injured as a result of negligence by a government employee or agency, claims for compensation are going to follow a different set of rules, at least early on in the process.

F.S. 768.28 is the state’s waiver of sovereign immunity law, outlining the various scenarios under which the state will agree to be sued. The state does set a number of limitations and guidelines. For example, a government worker can’t personally be held liable for harm unless they intentionally caused it. Damages against the government are capped at $200,000 for individuals and $300,000 for multiple parties harmed by the same action. Punitive damages and interest can’t be awarded, and there are other limitations if defendant in such a case is a public health agency (including a hospital) or law enforcement agency.

There is a also a special provision dealing with time limits. If you are injured by the state government, you have to file a notice of claim with that particular agency, and only after that claim has been rejected can you file your lawsuit. You must give the state agency at least 180 days to respond, and all this has to happen within the three-year window for personal injury cases and the two-year window for wrongful death lawsuits. Continue reading

March 10, 2017

Pursuing Third Party Liability After Construction Accident

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

When a worker is injured in a Fort Lauderdale construction accident, there are a number of possible avenues of compensation. The first, of course, is workers’ compensation, which is a no-fault insurance benefit afforded to almost all employees in Florida. Exclusive remedy provisions of the state’s workers’ compensation law hold that this benefit is the only compensation a worker can obtain against an employer. However, it does not prohibit third-party liability lawsuits against others who may have been negligent.

But in order to avoid liability, particularly after an accident that resulted in serious injury or death, a company may try to assert “employer” status, which would grant immunity from a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit. One way this might be asserted is via the Borrowed Servant Doctrine. This is more common following accidents on construction sites, where it is not uncommon for one employer to “loan” employees to another temporarily.

It’s common for a construction site subcontractor to loan out workers to another to ensure a particular job gets completed. If that “loaned” worker is hurt on the job, the question becomes: Which employer is entitled to workers’ compensation immunity? Unfortunately in some cases, the answer could be: Both. Continue reading

March 7, 2017

Property Owner Liability for Dangerous Road Conditions

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

The New York Court of Appeals recently considered a case wherein plaintiff alleged injuries sustained as a result of a poorly-maintained, diseased tree was the responsibility of both the property owner and the state. According to court records, plaintiff suffered serious personal injuries when a large branch broke off that tree, which abutted the road, and fell onto her Jeep. The impact caused her to suffer traumatic brain injuries.

Plaintiff and her spouse sued both the property owner and the state. Against the property owner, plaintiffs alleged there was negligence in the failure to inspect, trim and remove the dead/ diseased tree. As far as the state, plaintiff alleged negligence by Department of Transportation workers for a failure to properly maintain trees along that road or warn drivers of the dangerous along that highway.

Defendant property owner asked to be allowed to introduce trial evidence of the state’s alleged negligence, and also requested a jury instruction on the apportionment of liability for damages between property owner and the state. Plaintiff indicated that while there was nothing preventing the jury from hearing trial evidence tending to show the state was possibly liable for her injuries, but she objected insofar as the jury should not be allowed to apportion fault against the state. (The state could not be ultimately joined in this action because sovereign immunity laws prevented her from prevailing in such action.) Continue reading

February 23, 2017

Trip-and-Fall Injury Settlement for $1.5M in Favor of Personal Chef

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

A personal chef who sustained severe personal injuries following a trip-and-fall while at work in a private home was awarded $1.5 million in damages as part of a settlement agreement in exchange for voluntarily dismissing his claim in court.

According to the Greenwich Time, the settlement was reached between the chef and the remodeling company, which allegedly laid down a dangerous plastic runner on a set of stairs in the rear of the kitchen. The remodeling firm was contracting with the homeowner to carry out a series of residential renovations.

This settlement was important for the worker because in Connecticut, similar to in Florida, homeowner do not have to purchase workers’ compensation coverage for domestic workers they hire. The exemption laid out in F.S. 440.02(15)(c)1 specifies that domestic servants in private homes are exempt from the definition of “employment.” But homeowners who choose not to buy workers’ compensation insurance for housekeepers, personal chefs, nannies and others may find they are personally liable for injuries suffered by these workers on their properties. Granted, the worker would have to prove negligence on the part of the homeowner (something they don’t have to do in typical workers’ compensation claims), but if that worker prevails, he or she will be able to collect all of their lost wages (as opposed to just a portion), all medical bills and compensation for pain and suffering, emotional distress and loss of consortium. These payouts would most likely be made through the homeowner’s insurance policy. 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

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.