As our Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers can explain, brake checking is essentially a form of road rage. It can be done in response to someone following the brake-checker too closely, a practice called tailgating. Or it can simply be an aggressive driving tactic intended to annoy or scare the driver behind them for other reasons. The intention is rarely to cause a crash, but that’s a very real risk with brake-checking.

Brake checking is illegal. The Florida law on tailgating, F.S. 316.0895, explains that drivers can’t follow other motorists more closely than is reasonable and prudent. They must also have regard for the speed of traffic and road conditions. Sudden braking is a known potential on any road as hazards can quickly arise or conditions can abruptly change. That’s why the law requires drivers to maintain a reasonable distance from the car in front of them. However, if the driver in the lead intentionally or improperly slams on the brakes or stops, this can be used as evidence to effectively rebut the presumption of rear driver negligence in the event of a crash.

In the 2019 case of Fonger v. Nall, the Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal noted that if left unrebutted, the presumption in rear-end collisions is that the rear-driver was negligent and at-fault. Rebutting the presumption requires proof of one of the following:

• A mechanical failure affecting the rear driver’s vehicle.
• A sudden stop by the lead driver.
• A sudden lane change by the lead driver.
• An illegal or improper stop by the lead driver.

Brake-checking would fall under the second or fourth point here.

As our Fort Lauderdale injury attorneys can explain, an abrupt stop in and of itself isn’t sufficient to rebut the presumption of rear driver negligence because every driver has a duty to remain alert and maintain a safe distance from other vehicles. That means rear drivers must be prepared to stop suddenly. However, if the lead driver’s sudden stop was abrupt, not in a place reasonably expected, and arbitrary (i.e., brake-checking), then the presumption may be rebutted.

The Florida Supreme Court held in the 2000 case of Eppler v. Tarmac America that if a driver slams on their brakes in bumper-to-bumper traffic without warning and for no reason, it’s irresponsible, dangerous, and not reasonably expected – and thus, an effective rebuttal of the presumption of rear driver negligence. However, if an abrupt stop happens where one might reasonably expect it, then the plaintiff (lead driver) can expect to have a directed verdict in their favor.

Even if one overcomes the rebuttable presumption, that doesn’t necessarily mean the rear driver wins. Florida is a comparative negligence state, per F.S. 768.81. That means both drivers could be found to have shared some of the fault for what happened, in which case damages will be proportionately reduced. For example, if the rear driver was following too closely and the lead driver brake-checked, leading to a crash, one might decide each shared 50 percent of the blame. In that case, the plaintiff would only be entitled to collect 50 percent of their total damages from the other driver.

If you’re injured in a Fort Lauderdale car accident, we can help you evaluate what your case may be worth and explore your legal options.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

F.S. 768.81, Florida Comparative Fault Statute

More Blog Entries:

Florida Wrongful Death Lawsuits Bring Closure, and a Safer Future, Aug. 1, 2022, Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Blog

Sometimes, citations for traffic violations will be issued, with conclusions drawn about who was at-fault for the Florida car accident.

But while police reports can be very persuasive and valuable in a crash case, they aren’t the only evidence considered, nor are they generally deemed the last word in any crash case. (In fact, the crash report itself is generally considered “hearsay,” and can’t be presented as evidence at trial absent the testimony of the officer who wrote it.)more

Even if a police report clearly indicates who is at-fault, the auto insurance adjuster will nonetheless conduct their own investigation. Sometimes adjusters identify something an officer missed. Other times, the adjuster will reach an entirely different conclusion than the officer. In the event of this kind of dispute and a settlement can’t be reached between the two sides, the decision will rest with the court.

Car Accident Settlements Not Always Predicated on Police Reports

An example of this was seen recently in a Florida car accident wrongful death lawsuit settlement involving pro-tennis player Venus Williams. As reported by Reuters, Williams was involved in a car accident in Palm Beach Gardens that resulted in the death of a 78-year-old man who was a passenger in the sedan, driven by his wife, that collided with the SUV Williams was driving. The man suffered massive internal injuries and died in the hospital two weeks later.

The initial police report indicated Williams was at-fault for the crash for failure-to-yield. However, new evidence in the form of surveillance video from a nearby security camera captured the frame-by-frame of the crash. Police then amended the crash report, finding Williams lawfully entered the intersection and another car made a turn in front of Williams’ car, causing her to stop proceeding through the intersection as she had been. Then the front end of plaintiff’s vehicle slammed into the front end of Williams’. The police report concluded that the unknown “phantom vehicle” started a chain of events that led to the crash, and Williams was not at-fault.

Nonetheless, plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Williams, alleging her negligence led to the crash. Recently, it was reported Williams settled the lawsuit for an undisclosed amount.

Although the case never went to trial, it goes to show that the conclusions of investigating officers don’t always predicate the outcome of the injury or wrongful death car accident claim. That’s why even if you’re cited for negligence in a crash – or the other driver isn’t – you should still speak to an experienced Fort Lauderdale car accident injury attorney as soon as possible following the collision.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Venus Williams, 2nd driver won’t be charged in fatal crash, police say, Dec. 21, 2017, By Faith Karimi, CNN

More Blog Entries:

Florida Uninsured Motorist Benefits Affirmed After Road Debris Deemed Left by “Phantom” Vehicle, Dec. 10, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Attorney Blog

Lawmakers in Florida are working to change this. HB19, sponsored by a South Florida Republican and slated for consideration during the 2018 session, would repeal Florida’s Personal Injury Protection law that was first enacted in the early 1970s. The law would scrap PIP coverage and replace it with bodily injury liability coverage. Most states require bodily injury liability coverage (which covers others’ injuries if you’re at-fault in a crash). While most insured drivers in Florida have it, it’s not technically required. The state’s Financial Responsibility Law does mandate drivers be responsible for a minimum of $20,000 in damages to others if they’re at-fault in a crash, so most motorists opt to purchase it so they can avoid personal liability.

A House panel recently voted 18-7 to propel the measure forward to the House Floor when the new session starts in January.

Supporters of the measure say PIP has long been riddled with fraud and enormous costs. By turning Florida to a “fault” state when it comes to collisions, they opine motorists could save approximately $81 per vehicle in insurance coverage, which would amount to $1 billion a year. Supportive lawmakers say this doesn’t even take into account the fact that many motorists have had to increase their health insurance coverage to make up for the lack of coverage they have with auto insurance.

The measure is not universally supported. Those representing those in the medical field argue that while the current Florida PIP system may have problems, health care workers can rely on those expenses being covered in the immediate aftermath of a Fort Lauderdale car accident. Some are proposing, at the very least, adding a provision that would mandate medical payment coverage.

Other opponents to the bill include several big-name auto insurers, including Progressive and Allstate. Lobbyists for those industries are pushing for reform of “bad faith” insurance laws that allow those injured in Florida auto accidents to pursue action against insurers who unjustly deny or delay payment of injury claims. Insurers say these laws drive up insurance costs, though as our Broward injury lawyers have noted time and again, tort reform has shown to have very little impact on insurance costs. Instead, it generally harms those who are the most severely injured and need that help the most.

The current personal injury protection system is structured to ensure $10,000 will be available to cover the cost of injuries in minor accidents. There was reform in 2012 when lawmakers agreed to reduce non-emergency benefits to just $2,500. That measure also prohibited coverage for massage and acupuncture.

Florida drivers still have one of the highest car insurance premiums in the country – and that is for some of the lowest amounts of coverage. It’s one of only two states that doesn’t mandate bodily injury liability coverage.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

PIP repeal: House panel votes to overturn no-fault plan in Florida, Nov. 7, 2017, By Charles Elmore, The Palm Beach Post

More Blog Entries:

Florida Distracted Driving Accident Risk High, Oct. 20, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Attorney Blog

Pursuant to Section 95.11 of the Florida Statues, the time to file a civil personal injury for most torts, including a car accident there, is a statute of limitations of four years. However, in the event that the victim dies as a result of the negligent conduct alleged, the statute of limitations is reduced to a two-year statute of limitations.As our Fort Lauderdale personal injury lawyers can explain, however, if it is beyond the two-year period, it doesn’t mean that it is too late to file a case, but you will be restricted to filing a negligence case based upon the car accident and will not be able to pursue wrongful death damages. With all of that being said, you want to speak with an experienced car accident lawyer as soon as possible to make sure there is no unnecessary delay in filing your claim or ultimately filing a personal injury lawsuit should the case not settle.

According to a recent news article from the Sun Sentinel, a tourist was killed in fatal alleged hit-and-run car accident. His wife, who was with him at the time of the tragic accident, said the couple were driving around Las Olas after they had just come from dinner. He pulled over, because he wanted to take some pictures, she said, especially one of the boats he noticed while driving past what turned out to be the scene of the deadly accident.

His wife took a picture of him resting his arm on a sign that read “Welcome to Fort Lauderdale Beach,” and there were several large yachts in the water behind him. As he was headed back to the car, where his wife was seated after just taking the picture, she said she heard a loud noise and no longer saw her husband. His children were also in the car.

Authorities say the vehicle that hit him kept going as the driver fled the scene. They were eventually able to find the car, but they did not locate the driver and passenger. They began looking in area bars for the suspect as he might have been drinking around the time of the fatal Fort Lauderdale car accident.

Neighbors who ran out to the street when they heard the crash said that first responders did what they could before they transported him to Broward Medical Health Center, but his injuries proved too severe, and he was pronounced dead soon after arriving. They also said the area was very dangerous, as there are frequently speeders flying through the area as there are numerous drivers that are either drunk or on drugs, or both.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Visitor killed in hit-run crash just wanted ‘to have a picture with boats,’ wife says, July 3, 2017, By Mike Clary, Sun Sentinel

More Blog Entries:

FHP Launches Program to Help Solve Hit-and-Run Crash Cases, April 3, 2017, Pedestrian Accident Lawyer Blog

That’s what has Jewel Brangman’s father, Alexander, so incensed about the death of his beloved child, whom he called “my best friend.” The striking beauty was a college graduate, a model and a gymnast teacher. She lived in San Diego, and her father had moved there from New York to be closer to her. But the last Father’s Day card he ever received from her was in June 2014. In it, she told him no matter what, she’d always be his little girl.

Just months later, she was gone. She was reportedly traveling in a rental car on the Los Angeles freeway when she rear-ended a van. It was a multi-vehicle collision, involving four cars total. But while all others involved walked away with no serious injuries, 26-year-old Jewel was killed. The Honda in which Jewel was driving was reportedly equipped with a faulty airbag. The vehicle had been recalled back in 2009, but it doesn’t appear the airbag was ever switched.

Now, the family attorney says both Honda and Takata, the maker of the airbag, have conceded it was the airbag that caused her death. The lawsuit, which names the auto manufacturer and the part manufacturer and the rental car company, alleges a piece of shrapnel pierced Jewel’s neck when the airbag inflated. This was reportedly the only injury she suffered in the car accident. This was, by all accounts, a collision from which she should have walked away.

According to 10News.com, Honda had reportedly issued several recall notices to the rental car company. However, for some reason, the vehicle was not repaired. The rental car company did not respond to requests for comment from local reporters in San Diego.

Alexander Brangman says the recall process is inherently flawed and Honda should have done a better job informing people of the potential danger. And of course, it wasn’t until June of this year that a federal law passed requiring rental car companies to fix recalled cars before they are rented out again. Hard to believe but before then, it was still perfectly legal to rent out a dangerous vehicle that had been recalled. The new law, part of a transportation bill that passed last year, followed numerous reports – including this one – of drivers and passengers in rental vehicles who were killed or seriously injured while driving rental vehicles that had been recalled, but not taken off the rental lot.

Another of those cases involved the death of two sisters, Raechel and Jacqueline Houck, 24 and 20, killed in 2004 when their rented PT Cruiser caught fire due to a defective pour steering hose. That resulted Raechel losing control of the car and slamming into a semi-truck, killing them both. Her mother said the family was shocked to learn it wasn’t illegal to rent out recalled vehicles without first repairing them. Today, the law has changed.

Sadly, the measure came too late for Brangman. Her death was mentioned recently in a GQ Australian article on Scott Eastwood, Clint’s son, who was dating her at the time of his death.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Scott Eastwood’s Lost Love: How a Faulty Airbag Led to the Death of His Model Girlfriend, Aug. 23, 2016, By Dave Quinn, People.com

More Blog Entries:

$20 Million Verdict Against Truck Company for Traumatic Brain Injury, Sept. 14, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

When traumatic brain injuries occur as a result of a car accident caused by someone else’s negligence, the victim deserves to be compensated, as do their loved ones. It won’t give them back the life they had. But a just outcome in an injury lawsuit can alleviate the stress of medical bills. It can ease the financial woes caused by that individual no longer being able to work. Although nothing can return things to the way they once were, it can help families begin to heal.

Recently, a jury in the Georgia case of Khan v. Moore Freight Service Inc., recognized this. As Courtroom View Network (CVN) reported, plaintiff as awarded $20 million in damages following trial.more

The Pakistani immigrant reportedly suffered a devastating traumatic brain injury in a collision three years ago with a tractor-trailer. The 57-year-old plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injury in this truck accident when a tractor-trailer driven by one of the defendant’s blew through a red light.

Unfortunately at the same time, plaintiff and his wife were also at that intersection. The tractor-trailer struck plaintiff’s car, causing his brain injury. Plaintiff’s wife did not escape unscathed, suffering a neck injury.

The driver and his trucking company employer did not dispute liability. They freely admitted the truck driver was at-fault. That meant the only issue being decided at trial was damages.

Plaintiff’s attorney sought $25 million in damages. He had emigrated to the U.S. in 2009 and had become a citizen. As a result of the crash, plaintiff suffered injuries his neurosurgeon described, on a scale of 1-to-10, with 10 being dead, as an 8. Plaintiff was left unable to walk, talk or perform daily functions, such as feeding or bathing himself.

He brought his young family to the U.S. to forge a new life with them, a better life. His wife and children relied on him completely to provide for them. Now, those roles are reversed and they are left without extensive family support to care for him for the rest of his life.

The defense argued that the damage award plaintiff sought was excessive. While conceding “the case has value,” they disputed the $25 million being sought.

In order to prove the full extent of damages, plaintiff presented a life care plan that showed the full extent of his medical costs. Defendants argued that some of the information was flawed. For example, plaintiff’s family, rather than home health professionals, were the ones to provide his daily care.

In the end, jurors concluded $20 million was fair. That included $16.25 million to plaintiff’s conservator, as well as $3.75 million to plaintiff’s wife for her claim of loss of consortium. That award represents most of what his attorney’s had requested.

Plaintiff’s attorney had worried there might be some prejudice from jurors, as the plaintiff was both Muslim and from Pakistan. However, jurors ultimately, he said, “Looked at the evidence, put aside all prejudices and sympathies and awarded what the case was truly worth.”

Plaintiff’s attorney noted that defendant’s acceptance of liability didn’t warrant a discount on damages. He likened it to a scenario where a driver rear-ends another vehicle and causes $1,000 in damage, admits fault but then only offers to pay $50.

The fact that plaintiff’s family was providing the bulk of his care, his attorney argued, should not lessen the amount they receive either.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

BREAKING VERDICT: $20M Award Slams Trucking Co. in Traumatic Brain Injury Trial, Aug. 10, 2016, By Arlin Crisco, CVN

More Blog Entries:

Reboulet v. Schlosberg – Car Accident Lawsuit For Spinal Fusion Surgery, Sept. 9, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog

While many auto accident injuries can be serious, a fused spine is a lasting – and expensive – condition. It’s also extremely painful. When it results from another driver’s negligence, only an experienced injury lawyer should be trusted to handle the claim. Spinal fusion is a type of major surgery, often lasting several hours. It can involve bone taken from other areas and used to form a bridge between vertebrae or metal implants being inserted between sections until new bone can grow between them. Recovery time can take weeks and sometimes months. There are also risks that include:

• Intense pain
• Blood clots
• Nerve injuries
• Graft rejections
• Fusion failure

And of course, the surgery is extremely expensive.

According to reports from Courtroom View Network (CVN), the Georgia lawsuit, Reboulet v. Schlosberg, plaintiff is seeking more than $200,000 in compensation just for medical bills alone.

According to a pre-trial order plaintiff filed, it’s alleged defendant is at-fault for the rear-end collision that caused plaintiff’s injuries.

Plaintiff says he was traveling along a road in Cobb County, GA when a vehicle in front of him came to a sudden stop in order to make a left turn into a country club. Unfortunately, that driver was not using the correct turn lane; instead, he was in the middle. That’s part of the reason defendant probably did not anticipate the sudden stop by plaintiff. Nonetheless, defendant had a duty to maintain a safe and reasonable distance from the car ahead.

However, defense and his attorneys (hired by his auto insurance company) allege it was the plaintiff at-fault, as he was the only one to collide with a vehicle ahead of his in a line of cars behind the suddenly-stopped vehicle. This, they argue, means it was actually plaintiff who was following too closely, not paying attention and who is responsible for his own injuries.

The spinal fusion surgery was necessary due to the car accident neck injury plaintiff sustained in the incident. Plaintiff’s attorney said the case is fairly straightforward and, in many ways, “routine.” The problem was defendant had refused to settle for any reasonable amount. That left him with no choice, he said, but to press for a trial and take the case before a jury.

Plaintiff’s attorney speculated defense lawyers were relying on the “conservative nature” of jurors in the region. That’s a gamble, but many defense lawyers rely on the propaganda sewn by “tort reform” advocates, painting the picture that trial lawyers are greedy and car accident victims are only out for money. The reality is car accident victims incur substantial medical bills and lost wages as a result of these incidents. Through no fault of their own, they find themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hole. It’s not “greedy” to try to recover those damages – particularly from an auto insurance company that promises coverage for just these sorts of incidents.

Insurance companies are always searching for ways to slash their costs, and that typically involves offering to settle for far less than a case is worth. In order to ensure you receive fair compensation after a Fort Lauderdale car accident, work with an experienced lawyer.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Trial Over Cobb County Crash that Led to Driver’s Spinal Fusion Set to Begin Monday, Sept. 8, 2016, By Arlin Crisco, CVN

More Blog Entries:

Marshall v. Peter – Rear-End Collision Liability Not a Given, Sept. 7, 2015, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

For example, a sudden stop by a driver ahead isn’t enough to overcome the presumption. The stop has to be both sudden AND unexpected. For instance, a driver on a suburban street who stops suddenly for a child who darted out into the middle of road – that’s not wholly unexpected. Neither is a driver who stops suddenly at an intersection because someone else ran a red light. However, a driver who arbitrarily stops suddenly on a four-lane highway – that might be both sudden and unexpected.

Still, drivers who are struck from behind should not assume these will be slam-dunk cases either. An experienced attorney can help you spy any potential hurdles to overcome.more

One such case in which the rebuttable presumption was successfully refuted was Marshall v. Peter, a car accident lawsuit recently weighed by the Alaska Supreme Court. This was a case in which a driver was rear-ended by another at an intersection at which she stopped short. Normally this might seem a straightforward issue, but the problem was the driver behind her reportedly did not have his foot on the gas at the time of impact. He had taken his foot off the gas to proceed when the light turned green, but plaintiff stopped sooner than he anticipated and there was impact. It was believed that the speed at impact was approximately 3 mph. While the investigating officer did not note any damage to either vehicle and did not cite the rear driver for improper driving, he did conclude the driver had engaged in an “improper start.”

Plaintiff complained of neck pain at the scene, but did tell the officer she had been “totally disabled” due to a neck injury in an early car accident.

Approximately two years after the accident, plaintiff and her husband filed a personal injury lawsuit for damages seeking $212,000 in compensation. This included $1,000 in vehicle damage, $52,000 in medical bills, $150,000 for pain and suffering and $10,000 for loss of consortium.

Plaintiff then moved for summary judgment on the issue of defendant driver’s liability. She likely figured this would be the easiest part of the case, with proving damages being the greatest hurdle.

Within a week of her filing that motion, defendant returned with a settlement offer: $2,651.17. He also offered to pay her court costs, interest and attorney’s fees, plus $100 for her husband’s loss of consortium. This kind of offer makes it clear defendant believed plaintiff’s claim for damages was exorbitant, but wished for the case to be closed. Plaintiff didn’t respond to that offer. The court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and the case went to trial.

Jurors never needed to debate the issue of damages, however, because they did not find defendant liable. That means even though defendant struck plaintiff in a rear-end collision, he was not found at-fault. The reasons cited were:

• Both were stopped at a red light.
• The roads were very icy.
• Defendant hadn’t yet put his foot on the gas.

Because plaintiff had rejected a settlement offer that was close to what was ultimately awarded (i.e., nothing) plaintiff was ordered to pay defendant’s attorney’s fees – $62,000. This decision – along with the jury’s conclusion – was later affirmed by the Alaska Supreme Court.

This case shows why no attorney can ever promise a given outcome in a rear collision accident. Each case must be fully investigated and any settlement offers carefully considered. This is not to say it’s never a good idea to take your case to court. Sometimes, it’s the best option you have. But an experienced lawyer should help you proceed wisely.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Marshall v. Peter, Aug. 26, 2016, Alaska Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Steinberg v. Sahara Sam’s – Liability Waiver Can’t Shield From Legal Action for Gross Negligence, Aug. 26, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

One such tactic occurs even long before the crash: It is to draft policies that contain a myriad of exceptions and loopholes and contingencies so as to deny coverage on different grounds. However, as the recent case of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jakubowicz shows, this tactic can backfire when the language of the policy is ambiguous.

Courts across the country have held that when there is more than one meaning to the language in an auto insurance policy, the meaning that best favors the insured is the one that will be followed. That’s because courts have recognized that insurance companies, as the entities that draft the language of the policy, have the upper hand. It’s their responsibility to make sure the policy is clear.

In the Jakubowicz case, the issue before the Indiana Supreme Court involves a personal injury lawsuit and an underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage claim. UIM coverage, for those not familiar, is coverage that will kick in if an at-fault driver in a Fort Lauderdale car accident lacks adequate insurance to cover all victims’ losses.

In this particular case, the language of the UIM policy, drafted by defendant State Farm, asserted it would only pay UIM benefits for claims brought within three years of the accident. However, the claim also required insurers to fully comply with all provisions of the policy, which included a provision that, in order to assert damages for UIM coverage, the insured had to first collect all damages from the underinsured motorist’s insurer.

In essence, the insured was required to file the UIM claim within three years, which directly conflicts with the policy’s requirement to first exhaust the underinsured motorist’s insurance.

For this reason, the Indiana Supreme Court declared the policy ambiguous and construed it in favor of the insured.

The case started back in 2007. Plaintiffs – mother and her two minor sons – were involved in a car accident with an underinsured driver. Plaintiffs suffered substantial injuries.

Mother later sought compensation for the underinsured motorist for coverage of medical bills and property damage costs.

In late 2009, almost three years from the date of the accident, plaintiff put her own insurer on notice that she would likely be filing a UIM claim. However, that claim wasn’t formally filed until 2010, after the three-year mark.

Trial court had granted her leave to amend her claim to include a UIM claim, but defendant sought summary judgment, arguing the statute of limitations had expired.

The court of appeals accepted review of that decision and reversed the trial court, finding the insurance policy clearly stated plaintiff had just three years to file her UIM claim and had failed to do so within the allotted time.

The Indiana Supreme Court, however, reversed, reinstating the trial court’s ruling. In so doing, the state supreme court underscored the reasoning of the trial court, which was that the insurer could have easily just written a policy to say a UIM claim arising out of any incident had a cause of action of just three years, period. However, the insurer chose to add in a host of other conditions and limiting factors, rendering the policy ambiguous.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jakubowicz , July 26, 2016, Indiana Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Wiederhold v. Domino’s Pizza: $10M Verdict in Wrongful Death Lawsuit Holds Franchisor Liable, July 14, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

However, there are questions about how effective some of those laws truly are when when Florida has some of the highest rates of accident deaths by motor vehicles – including those involving bicyclists and pedestrians. In 2014, there were 2,494 traffic fatalities in Florida. That’s compared to New York – which has almost the exact same population – which had 1,039. California – which has double Florida’s population – had 3,074 that year. Texas, which is also about double, had 3,538.

Traffic safety experts say the issue is somewhat complicated. It starts with the fact that our roads (as were many in the South) were designed primarily for fast motor vehicle traffic. It continues with the fact that we have year-round nice weather and beautiful beaches and other tourist draws. That means we have far more people on our roads, many of them inexperienced with the area and sometimes on long commutes. There is also the issue of lacking public transportation, which is a major problem in a lot of Florida cities. But another issue is the fact that many of our traffic laws are rather lax.

Let’s start with speed limits. In New York, which despite having roughly the same population as Florida, has less than half the number of traffic fatalities, the speed limit on major busy highways is 55 mph. In Florida, the speed limits is 70 mph. The motor vehicle death rate in New York is 5.3 per 100,000 people. In Florida, it’s 12.5. When it comes to factors in fatal car accidents, the U.S. Department of Transportation reports that speeding was a factor in 28 percent of all motor vehicle accident deaths. It’s consistently ranked as a factor in one-third of all traffic accident fatalities since 2005. “Speeding” is considered not only exceeding the speed limit, but going too fast for the conditions.

Another issue: Distracted driving laws. Florida was one of the last states to outlaw texting and driving (in 2013) and it is one of the few that designates it as a secondary offense. That means cops cannot pull drivers over if they see them violating the law – unless they also see them breaking some other law. On top of that, even if a person is pulled over and cited, the ticket is for a mere $30 for a first-time offense.

FOX 4 recently reported there were 46,000 distracted driving accidents in Florida last year.

Another issue is the lax criminal penalties faced by drivers who hit and kill or injure cyclists and pedestrians. Unless the driver was drunk or tries to flee, he or she is usually only issued a traffic citation. Very rarely will they face jail time. Often the only way for victims to attain accountability is through civil litigation.

Finally, there are motorcycle helmet laws. Of course, these are controversial and state law is clear that a rider’s decision not to wear one won’t affect civil liability if another driver hits a motorcyclist. However, there is ample evidence that helmets do save lives – with riders being 67 percent less likely to suffer a brain injury and 37 percent less likely to die while wearing one.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Driving laws are unsafe in Florida, June 14, 2016, By David Zuhusky, The News-Press

More Blog Entries:

Florida Tractor-Trailer Accident Victim Dies One Year Later, June 14, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Of course, this has the potential to cause injuries.

Still, that won’t prevent the at-fault driver from asserting the low-impact defense if they can help it. They will try to introduce as evidence pictures of the minimal amount of damage to the vehicle. They may also introduce witness testimony to illustrate the crash occurred in stop-and-go traffic or while vehicles were not traveling fast. They may also highlight the fact that plaintiff refused medical attention immediately after the crash, insinuating that plaintiff may be exaggerating the extent of his or her injuries.

The case of Rish v. Simao, recently heard by the Nevada Supreme Court, involved a low-impact car accident lawsuit.

According to court records, plaintiff was moving along in stop-and-go traffic when he was struck from behind by defendant’s vehicle. The damage to both vehicles was not extensive. And although emergency medical services technicians were called to the scene, plaintiff refused any medical treatment or transportation to a local hospital.

However, a few days after the crash, plaintiff went to a local health care provider to report he was in near constant pain. He was having massive headaches and his neck ached. He sought a series of medical treatments to address these problems, which doctors opined were caused by the earlier crash.

After plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendant to recover damages for his injuries, defendant sought to present evidence that plaintiff’s injuries were not as serious as he alleged because the force of impact was so minor.

However, an earlier case in Nevada, Hallmark v. Eldridge, resulted in a finding from the Nevada Supreme Court that an expert biomechanical engineer must have sufficient foundation in order to testify as to certain conclusions (i.e., extent of damages and injuries). Defendant in this case did not retain any biomechanical engineer. On this basis, plaintiff sought an order from trial court that would prohibit defense introduction of any evidence that would tend to show the crash happened at low speeds/ had a minimal impact. Plaintiff argued that because defendant did not have a qualified biomechanical engineer to attest to conclusions that would be made about a low-impact crash, all such evidence should be blocked.

Trial court agreed.

Throughout trial, defense continued to slip in evidence that indicated the low speed/ minimal impact. Trial judge sustained several objections by plaintiff. Finally, by the eighth such violation of that pre-trial order, trial court imposed a sanction on the defense in the form of a summary judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Before the issue of damages could be addressed, defense appealed that summary judgment.

The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. In its decision, the court clarified that there was no requirement that defendants in such cases hire an expert biomechanical engineer for these cases. Rather, if they did present the testimony of such a professional, that individual had to be sufficiently qualified.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Rish v. Simao, March 17, 2016, Nevada Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Report: U.S. Drivers are Distracted More Than Half the Time, March 20, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Accident Lawyer Blog