car accident attorney - Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

Florida Car Accident Victim: Lyft is Liable for Driver-Distracting App

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Thu, 04 Apr 2019 15:22:38 GMT

Distracted driving continues to be a major problem in Florida – one a Palm Beach County lawsuit alleges has been compounded by the “inherently dangerous” technology employed by one of South Florida’s popular rideshare companies.

Plaintiff was a pedestrian who sustained serious, life-long injuries in a crash several months ago. The driver who struck her had himself been struck seconds earlier by a Lyft Inc. driver. Plaintiff alleges the Lyft driver was distracted by the company’s digital app, which requires the independent contractors to check their phones constantly behind the wheel.

Are Rideshare Apps Unreasonably Dangerous?

Although this isn’t the first time rideshare drivers and even other technology companies have been accused of liability in distracted driving cases, this matter is a bit different than many of the others our Palm Beach County car accident attorneys have seen. In addition to asserting Lyft’s negligence, plaintiff also raises the issue of product liability. The technology is unreasonably dangerous as designed, according to the complaint.

Unlike tort claims which require proof of negligence (duty of care, breach of duty, causation and damages), product liability claims can be filed on the basis of “strict liability.” This means even if the company that designed/manufactured a product was extremely careful in doing so, they can still be held liable if the product was unreasonably dangerous. Plaintiff bears that proof burden of establishing the product wasn’t just dangerous (some inherently are) but unreasonably so, particularly when used in a manner intended or even foreseeable. Lawmakers have widely concluded that this is sufficient. Proof of negligence in the design of a product – particularly a unique product like this involving complex digital systems) is often insurmountably difficult and often unnecessary. The reality in most cases is that if a product is unreasonably dangerous, it’s likely the result of the designer’s negligence, but the legal logic is strict liability compels companies to invest in public safety.

In this case, plaintiff alleges both negligence and strict liability.

Ongoing Legal Challenges to Tech Companies in Florida Car Accident Lawsuits

Lyft, like other rideshare companies such as Uber, do not own a fleet of vehicles or employ drivers directly. Instead, companies manage the smartphone apps and websites to which customers connect when they want to arrange a ride or pick up a fair.

Amid growing car accident liability claims nationally, both companies decided to adopt a $1 million insurance policy for drivers at-fault for a crash while carrying a passenger, less when the driver is en route to pick up a passenger.

Recently in Michigan, a woman filed a lawsuit against both Lyft and Uber, after suffering severe traumatic brain injuries when the driver of the car in which she was a passenger had both apps switched on simultaneously and was reportedly distracted by them when he slammed into a semi truck traveling 70 mph, The Detroit Free Press reports. Plaintiff does not allege product liability, but instead direct negligence because of the company’s incessant messaging of drivers they know (via GPS tracking) to be traveling at high speeds.

Other tech companies, like Apple Inc., maker of the iPhone, have also been named defendants in distracted driving cases. However, Apple has won all of the cases that have proceeded thusfar. There are still cases pending. Several allege the company was negligent for failure to implement a software component that would disable features like FaceTime when a car is in motion. The tech company has a patent for this technology, but thus far has not added it to products.

One such case out of Texas involves the parents of a five-year-old girl, killed when a driver using his FaceTime app rear-ended them at a high speed.

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

Additional Resources:

Florida Suit Accuses Lyft of Defective App Design Following Crash That Injured Pedestrian, April 2019, Law.com

More Blog Entries:

Top 4 Most Dangerous Types of Fort Lauderdale Car Accidents, March 30, 2019, Palm Beach County Car Accident Attorney Blog

Seek South Florida Injury Lawyer Advice for Lawsuit Against Estate of Deceased Defendant

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Wed, 05 Dec 2018 22:36:23 GMT

A South Florida injury lawyer can give you advice if you were injured as a result of negligence by someone who died in the accident itself or soon thereafter. A personal injury claim doesn’t die when the defendant does, though there can be complications because the case will be filed not against the person, but his or her estate. Typically though, it will still be an insurance company that stands in to represent the defendant and that ultimately foots the bill – especially in Florida car accident lawsuits.

An appellate court in California recently addressed several issues that arose from such a situation in Meleski v. Estate of Holtlen, where a plaintiff sued the estate of a decedent, alleged to have been the at-fault driver in a crash in which plaintiff was injured. Although this was an out-of-state case, the same general principles apply with regard to Florida injury litigation.

In this case, plaintiff was injured when defendant ran a red light, colliding with her vehicle. Unfortunately, by the time plaintiff filed her lawsuit, defendant was deceased, apparently of unrelated causes. Decedent had no estate from which she could recover, but he had purchased an auto insurance policy for $100,000 that covered the accident. Plaintiff brought her complaint pursuant to the state’s probate statutes, which allowed her to serve her complaint on the insurance company directly and recover damages from that policy, though limiting recovery of damages to policy limits.more

It’s important to point out here that California, like Florida, has a statutory provision that allows either side of certain kinds of civil lawsuits to collect attorney’s fees if an offer of settlement is rejected and the party who made the offer prevails in trial in excess of that offer. In Florida, the relevant statute is F.S. 768.79, which states if a plaintiff serves an offer not accepted by the defendant and the subsequent judgment obtained by the plaintiff is 25 percent more than the amount of the offer, plaintiff shall be awarded reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees and investigative expenses.

In the recent case, plaintiff attempted to settle the car accident injury lawsuit prior to trial for $99,999. The insurer rejected that offer. The case went to trial and plaintiff won, with jurors awarding her more than $180,000 in damages. Because her initial settlement offer was rejected, she sought recovery of her litigation costs. The trial court ruled against her, citing the statute indicating her claim directly against the insurer was limited the policy limits.

Plaintiff appealed, arguing that while the name of decedent’s estate is the named defendant in the action under state probate laws, it is “legal fiction,” because the insurer is the one that accepts service of process, hires and funds lawyers and pays judgment in favor of plaintiff, if one is rendered. It is also the entity that chooses whether or not to appeal an adverse judgment.

The appellate court agreed, noting this to be “a reality we will not ignore,” and further it would be “manifestly unfair” that the provision of probate law could be used by an auto insurance company to recover costs from plaintiff if she had rejected their offer of settlement, but that it would not have the same responsibility to her in the inverse.

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

Additional Resources:

Meleski v. Estate of Holtlen, Nov. 29, 2018, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District

More Blog Entries:

$3 Million Verdict in Construction Zone Crash Injury Lawsuit Affirmed, Nov. 14, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog

$3 Million Verdict in Construction Zone Crash Injury Lawsuit Affirmed

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Wed, 14 Nov 2018 17:14:57 GMT

Work zone crashes are an incredibly serious problem that continues to plague our Florida roads and highways. The U.S. Department of Transportation reports in a single recent year, there were an estimated 97,000 work zone crashes, an increase of nearly 8 percent from just a year earlier – and a 42 percent rise since 2013. Although most only result in property damage, our Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers know that every single day, there are at least 70 work zone crashes resulting at least one injury and every week, at least a dozen deaths. Even while overall highway traffic deaths decline, work zone crash fatalities are rising. Of those killed, 85 percent were drivers and passengers in cars and 25 percent of those fatal crashes involved a large truck (compared to 12 percent of highway deaths overall).

Recently, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a $3 million verdict for plaintiff in a highway construction zone crash lawsuit, after defendant construction company sought a new trial or alternatively a remittitur (reduction of damages).

Work Zone Crash Causes Serious Personal Injury

The work zone crash occurred in June 2010 on a two-lane U.S. Highway where the construction crew was replacing the bridge and approaches to it. The state Department of Transportation had prepared plans for the project, including traffic control, and had supervisors on site to ensure compliance. Defendant construction worker was operating a Caterpillar motor grader in the northbound lane. Plaintiff, with four passengers in his van, attempted to go around the motor grader by crossing the double-yellow line into the southbound lane. The motor grader then turned left, and the two vehicles collided. Plaintiff suffered a double-fractured jaw, broken leg and bruised lung.

Plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit stemming from the car accident, alleging defendant construction worker in the course and scope of his employment was negligent in operating the construction equipment, and his employer was vicariously liable. Defendants sought summary judgment, in part alleging plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Plaintiff sought sanctions against the construction company had engaged in spoliation of evidence by repairing the motor grader before plaintiff had an opportunity to inspect it, despite being put on notice of plaintiff’s intent. The judge denied both motions, the case went to trial and plaintiff won, with jurors awarding $3 million.

Personal Injury Verdict Affirmed

On appeal, plaintiff argued trial court erred in in denying an earlier motion for judgment as a matter of law on grounds plaintiff violated state traffic law by crossing the double yellow line just prior to the crash, constituting negligence per se and making him contributorily negligent and thus (in that state) ineligible to claim damages. Plaintiff argued his crossing of the center line was allowed because the motor grader was in his lane of travel, was not actively engaged in work, had no brake lights, hazard lights or turn signals and appeared to be parked. He also said there was scant indication of a construction zone in place. Plaintiff’s passengers confirmed this, but defendant driver disputed, as did a supervisor for the state DOT, who stated the site did have all appropriate construction work zone warnings in place that morning. Plaintiff’s speed was also a disputed point (he said 25 mph, a nearby construction worker witness said 65 mph).

The trial court carefully looked at this evidence, as well as expert witness testimony, medical records and bills in examining whether the trial court had fairly reached a conclusion on both issues of liability and damages. Ultimately, the state supreme court ruled the trial judge’s detailed order indicated no error in the jury’s verdict and defense had not presented evidence that would support their claim for reduced damages.

Florida personal injury attorneys in Fort Lauderdale recognize that construction zone accident cases can present more complexities than a typical car accident claim, firstly because they tend to result in greater injuries and there are many different entities – including government agencies – whose actions may be at issue. It’s important to consult with an experienced injury attorney before deciding how best to proceed.

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

Additional Resources:

Campbell v. Kennedy, Oct. 26, 2018, Alabama Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Busting Florida Personal Injury Law Myths, Oct. 8, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Attorney Blog

Florida Bad Faith Insurance Verdict Against Auto Insurer Affirmed

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Sun, 12 Aug 2018 17:48:04 GMT

A $3 million Florida bad faith insurance claim was affirmed recently by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which found the auto insurer refused to tender its $250,000 policy limits to a plaintiff, even though it was well-established her injuries were clearly in excess of that.

As our Broward car accident attorneys can explain, bad faith insurance, as outlined in F.S. 624.155, occurs when an insurer either unreasonably refuses to pay or properly investigate a claim (first-party) or when an insurer unreasonably fails to defend, indemnify or settle a claim within policy limits or investigate for a different party (third-party). As outlined in the 1995 Florida Supreme Court case of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, an insurer’s duty of good faith involves the duty to refrain from acting solely on the basis of their own interests in settlement.

Claims for bad faith are separate and apart from the original negligence claim that is filed for crash liability, and can result in plaintiffs being awarded triple their actual damages.

In this case, according to the order, the crash in question occurred in late October 2010. Defendant driver reportedly had no lights on at night while attempting to make an illegal left turn.

The insurer was notified of the crash a few days later, at which time it was reported the victim had been airlifted from Key West to Miami with a severe brain injury. Further, a police report submitted to the insurer indicated that its insured (the at-fault driver) was cited by police for failure to yield the right-of-way. The insurer knew the following day that the crash victim had been in a coma for 10 days and also made a determination that its insured was 100 percent at-fault. With this evidence, the appellate court found, a reasonable jury could have concluded that on that date – Nov. 5, 2010 – that the insurance company had all the evidence it needed to conclude the cost of medical expenses and non-economic damages merited a tender of the full $250,000 policy limit. Further, an expert for the company said that by Nov. 10th, the company had expected to pay the full policy limit to resolve the case, given that the victim was still in a coma, had catastrophic facial injury, was undergoing brain surgery, had a feeding tube and was unable to breathe on her own. The facial injury alone would have been grounds to remit the $250,000 policy limit.

And yet, the insurance company refused the husband’s demand to tender the full policy limit until Nov. 22 – after the victim’s husband had filed a personal injury lawsuit on her behalf.

The bad faith claim was litigated over the course of several years, during which plaintiffs made several settlement offers to defendants and the insurer – all of which were rejected. Plaintiffs alleged the insurer’s refusal to settle cost them tens of thousands of dollars and five years of delay on a claim that should have been settled right away after the crash happened – or else at numerous opportunities during the progression of the underlying bad faith lawsuit.

At trial, the parties agreed on the extent of damages – $2.95 million – so the only issue that remained was whether the insurer acted in bad faith. The jury decided the case in favor of plaintiff, and the appellate court affirmed.

Although an auto insurer has no duty to settle any case beyond its policy limits, the appellate panel ruled it was reasonable for a jury to conclude the insurer had all the information it needed by Nov. 5, 2010 to settle the claim for the full policy limits. The fact that it waited until after plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to do so, the court held, constituted bad faith.

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

Additional Resources:

11th Circuit Upholds $2.9M Bad Faith Verdict Against Geico, July 25, 2018, By Greg Land, Law.com

More Blog Entries:

Florida Motorcycle Accident Lawsuits May Named Loved Ones Defendants, July 13, 2018, Broward Car Accident Attorney Blog

FIU Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Lawsuits Allege Negligence

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Mon, 30 Jul 2018 18:44:24 GMT

Following the stunning and tragic collapse of a pedestrian bridge under construction over Southwest Eighth Street at Florida International University in mid-March, resulting in the death of six people killed and several others injured, a total of six lawsuits have so far been filed. It’s likely more will be forthcoming.

Each plaintiff was represented by a different Florida personal injury or wrongful death law firm (with the exception of two plaintiffs represented by the same firm), each tasked with the massive undertaking of conducting their own investigations and gathering their own evidence as to what happened and who should be responsible. In some instances, law firms dispatched investigators on the ground while cleanup of the site was still underway, helping to gather critical evidence, while others joined in the weeks that followed. Some of the initial questions raised when there are negligence lawsuits involving that many people for the same incident are:

How closely will they work together? For instance, will they pool resources during the discovery process, which is likely to converge?
How many will file against the exact same defendants?
What degree of independence will they maintain in hiring experts and investigating what went wrong with the design, construction, installation and testing of the bridge?

What we know is that so far, most plaintiffs have named the construction and engineering firms that were working on the bridge, while some said they intend to add FIU as a defendant at some point and others have named a total of four defendants.

Daily Business Review interviewed several of plaintiff law firms, most of whom indicated they do have an interest in consolidating their discovery to some extent. It’s likely, they noted, that defendants will be intolerant of eight or nine different South Florida personal injury law firms conducting the same depositions repeatedly. Still, some law firms expressed concern over the quality of the investigative legwork of others. A flawed test or inappropriate test could result in findings that are misleading or inaccurate, and especially in a complex case like this, credibility is going to be of critical importance.

It’s probable that most injury firms will utilize to some extent the ultimate findings of the national Transportation Safety Board and law enforcement investigators. However, injury and wrongful death attorneys are under no obligation (and some have displayed no desire) to wait until those investigations are concluded to start their own. That’s because just as in any other civil tort case, while the findings of police or any other investigative unit may be used as evidence, it is not the last and final word on the question of liability. It’s for this reason that many Florida injury lawyers conduct their own separate investigation. It’s also worth pointing out that we are often looking at a case through a different lens than government investigators. They are generally seeking evidence that would indicate a violation of traffic or criminal laws. We are looking for evidence of negligence. The elements are different as are the proof burdens. Your attorney is also the only one investigating from a standpoint of looking out specifically for your best interests.

In a case like this where there are likely to be numerous plaintiffs and defendants, it’s best to consult with a legal team as early as possible. Many insurance policies – even those with substantial liability limits – still have per-incident caps, and you will want to have whatever advantage you can.

Here, we know the bridge collapsed approximately one week after cracks were discovered. Some important questions will be what was FDOT’s response upon learning of those cracks? Why was testing being conducted mid-day when traffic was passing through underneath? Also, why did those firms involve insist on using a quick-build approach when other options were available?

Florida wrongful death lawsuits must be filed within two years from the date of death, while personal injury lawsuits must be filed within four. That doesn’t mean any plaintiff can afford to wait that long – especially where numerous other claimants are likely to be involved.

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

Additional Resources:

Plaintiffs Lawyers in FIU Bridge Collapse Race to Answer Urgent Questions, March 30, 2018, By Celia Ampel, Daily Business Review

More Blog Entries:

Florida Wrongful Death Claims: Awards to Survivors v. The Estate, May 11, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Wrongful Death Attorney Blog

Court: Crash Case Defendant/ Employer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Sun, 03 Jun 2018 14:53:01 GMT

Many ranches, farms and other agricultural companies arrange for employee housing in addition to wages for their workers. This can raise some interesting legal questions if workers are involved in a collision traveling to-and-from work, especially if one or more is paid during that time.

Typically in workers’ compensation law and with vicarious liability claims, the time in which workers are going to are leaving from work is subject to the “coming-and-going rule.” The coming-and-going rule holds an employee is not acting in the course and scope of employment while traveling to and from work. Therefore, injuries occurring during that time are generally not covered by workers’ compensation and vicarious liability lawsuits.

In a recent case out of Texas, the Texas Supreme Court weighed whether the lower courts had properly granted summary judgment to an employer in a fatal crash case. The court ruled that judgment was improper, reversed and remanded the case to trial for further proceedings.

According to court records, the negligence lawsuit arose from a car accident that occurred when a drilling company employee was transporting three of his coworkers from the drill site to employer-provided housing. The drill site supervisor was paid a “bonus” of $50 a day to return the workers in the evening to their housing. The workers weren’t required to live there, but most did. The company didn’t put any restrictions on the route they took or whether they stopped along the way and the supervisor drove his own truck.

One day while driving his co-workers home, the supervisor struck another vehicle, resulting in a rollover car accident that killed two people and injured two others, including the drill supervisor. The drill supervisor sought – and received – workers’ compensation benefits after a contested hearing before the state’s Insurance Workers’ Compensation Division. The other injured worker and representatives of decedent crew members did not seek workers’ compensation benefits.

One of those workers filed a lawsuit against the driver and the company, alleging the company was vicariously liable for its drivers’ negligence. Normally, a worker would not be able to sue an employer, as workers’ compensation would be deemed the exclusive remedy, but that would only be if the worker was acting in the course and scope of employment at the time of the injury. This was part of employer’s defense. Employer also argued that the drill instructor driver was not acting in the course and scope of employment because it had no control over the transportation of workers and that the drill supervisor was not its employee at the time of the crash, but rather a “borrowed servant.”

Although trial court and appellate court sided with employer on a motion for summary judgment, the state supreme court reversed. The state high court held an employer could not establish fluidity as to a worker’s position as an employee vs. independent contractor based on the job they are doing at any given time, as a worker’s status might change constantly throughout a given day. Further, the court held the workers’ status at the time of the crash (and whether they were acting in the course and scope of employment, as it had already been determined the driver was), could not be decided as a matter of law.

The case was remanded for trial, and the injured worker and survivors of those killed will have an opportunity to pursue damages.

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

Additional Resources:

Painter v. Amerimex Drilling I, Ltd., April 13, 2018, Texas Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Court: Car Accident Plaintiff Motive in Injury Lawsuit Irrelevant, May 31, 2018, Fort Myers Car Accident Attorney Blog

Court: Car Accident Plaintiff Motive in Injury Lawsuit Irrelevant

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Thu, 31 May 2018 16:15:02 GMT

In a multiple vehicle car accident, where witnesses may give widely varying accounts of what actually happened and who is at-fault and to what degree, the credibility of each witness and party becomes critical. It’s not uncommon for defense attorneys to challenge the credibility of plaintiffs to challenge their own client’s liability.

In a recent case before the Hawaii Supreme Court, this was precisely what the defense attorney did, via alleging at various points during the trial that plaintiff was not even in the vehicle, was not injured in the course and scope of employment (she was a home health aide reportedly helping transport a patient to a doctor’s office at the time of the crash) and that she had filed this personal injury lawsuit as a money grab on top of her fraudulent workers’ compensation claim. He went so far as to tell the jury during closing arguments that if they sided with plaintiff, they should be ashamed of themselves as it would consummate plaintiff’s fraud. Mind you, this was not something of which she’d been formally accused or convicted.

Plaintiff sought a jury instruction that would stipulate they could not consider her motive in filing the case, but rather only whether defendant was negligent. Trial court rejected that request, and jurors returned an 11-1 verdict in the defense favor, finding defendant – the rear driver in a three-car pileup – was not the legal cause of plaintiff’s injury.

Plaintiff appealed. She argued firstly the trial court erred in allowing prejudicial and irrelevant testimony about an alleged unrestrained child in the backseat of vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger (something she and the driver denied). She also alleged the court erred in not using her jury instruction indicating they were not to consider her motive for pursuing this claim in the first place.

An appeals court ruled references to alleged workers’ compensation fraud should never have been allowed, and further that while allegations of an unrestrained child might have had relevance in establishing plaintiff’s position in the car at the time of impact, the prejudicial elements of this information far outweighed its probative value, particularly as defense attorney mentioned in repeatedly in conjunction with plaintiff’s alleged workers’ compensation fraud. Appellate court vacated the previous denial of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial or judgment as a matter of law, and remanded the case back to the lower court for a new trial.

Defense appealed, but the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed.

The court noted that a plaintiff’s motives for filing a car accident lawsuit are irrelevant so long as he or she has made her case on facts that have merit.

In other words, it doesn’t matter if you hate the defendant and want revenge. The only thing that matters is whether you have used facts to make your case and that your claim is decided on merits. And this isn’t a new concept. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1900 held that if courts started concerning themselves with the motives of everyone who filed a case, it would have the effect of seriously skewing the merit. This isn’t to say a plaintiff’s motive is always inadmissible, but it shouldn’t be used to consider the merits of a case.

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

Additional Resources:

Medeiros v. Choy, April 26, 2018, U.S. Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Liability When Poor Road Conditions, Construction, Cause Florida Car Accident, April 9, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Attorney Blog

Liability When Poor Road Conditions, Construction, Cause Florida Car Accident

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:25:25 GMT

The majority of car accidents in Fort Lauderdale are the result of driver error, often distraction, impairment or speeding. However, poor road conditions can be a causal or contributing factor. It’s imperative for injury attorneys examining your claim for damages to carefully analyze whether this may be grounds to file claims against additional parties, such as the local municipality, the state or construction company.

In most of these cases, we must show the defendant had a duty of care to maintain the roadway, breached that duty with negligent maintenance, and/ or failed to adequately warn drivers of a potential danger.

Crashes in construction zones are a unique – and serious – problem. The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that in 2015, there were nearly 97,000 crashes in work zones nationally – representing an almost 8 percent increase since 2015 and a 42 percent increase since 2013. Of course, crashes overall have gone up as well, but the increase in these crashes is over-represented. More than a quarter of them involved injury to at least one person and 642 of them resulted in at least one death. More than 40 percent of those deadly crashes were rear-end collisions.more

Some of the unique dangers in construction zones include:

Unpredictable road patterns;
Misplaced signs;
Motorist unfamiliarity with road patterns;
Steep drop-offs;
Loose debris;
Last-minute lane change attempts;
Machinery blocking pathways;
Drivers speeding or winding through reduced-speed lanes;
Uneven roadway;
Presence of large construction vehicles/ sometimes pull out unexpectedly into traffic;
Poor lighting.

Recently in Delaware, the state supreme court there tackled a case of a fatal construction zone crash and was asked to decide whether a lower court rightly dismissed plaintiff’s wrongful death lawsuit against the construction company responsible for maintenance of the zone wherein the single-vehicle accident occurred.

According to court records from the Delaware Supreme Court, a driver and her passenger – both young women – entered a stretch of road that was undergoing construction, though there was no active construction going on at the time, as it was nighttime on a weekend. Driver encountered a road condition known as “raveling.” This is when there is a progressive disintegration of the top layer of pavement, resulting in dislodged particles. It’s extremely hazardous as it can cause a vehicle to hydroplane, which is exactly what occurred in this situation.

The road construction process here involved something called cold in-place recycling, which involves removing about five inches from the top of the asphalt, mixing the removed layer with a binding agent and then re-applying it as a base layer. Then a final coat is laid on top. The recycled coat has to cure for about a week, during which time the road can be open to traffic, but the surface is still unfinished and rough.

Driver lost control and barreled into a cluster of trees. The impact killed the passenger and seriously injured the driver.

Passenger’s parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the general contractor of the construction company (among others), arguing it negligently failed to place adequate temporary traffic control signs or devices warning the public of road conditions. Contractor sought summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to post temporary traffic control signs or devices warning about the road condition over the weekend, regardless of whether it anticipated raveling would occur due to a forecast storm that weekend. Trial court agreed and also found certain repair work by the state DOT that weekend broke the causal link between any negligence by the contractor and the accident.

The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, finding that analysis wasn’t legally correct.

The court noted there was evidence of this construction company having prior experience with raveling while using this same road construction process on paving jobs, so it was aware that such a hazard existed, especially when the road is subjected to heavy traffic, excessive rain and limited sunlight. This was a heavily-traveled road – especially on weekends – and it also had heavy tree cover and there was a predicted significant rainfall that weekend. Although there was no evidence of raveling at 4 p.m. the Friday prior to the crash when worked stopped for the weekend, but they did not put up a sign warning of the possibility. Driver had testified that if she had seen a sign warning of loose gravel or rough road, she would have slowed until she could have gauged the road’s condition.

The court ruled summary judgment was inappropriate because questions of material fact remained about whether the company breached its duty of care as a prudent and reasonable contractor. The case is now back on case for trial.

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

Additional Resources:

Pavik v. George & Lynch, Inc., March 23, 2018, Delaware Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Negligent Auto Repair Can Be Grounds for Car Accident Lawsuit, March 20, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Attorney Blog

Negligent Auto Repair Can Be Grounds for Car Accident Lawsuit

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:24:00 GMT

A collision center in Texas has been ordered to pay $31.5 million to a couple in Dallas who suffered serious injuries as a result of a crash exacerbated by negligent auto repairs.

Plaintiffs – husband and wife – suffered horrible injuries as a result of the fiery wreck. These include the husband’s fourth-degree burns, which continues to inflict constant agonizing pain. Although the crash was caused by a negligent driver in a sport utility vehicle, experts would later testify that plaintiffs should have walked away from that collision relatively unscathed. Instead, because of an improper auto repair following a hailstorm several months earlier, vehicle occupants are left with severe and permanent injuries.

The negligent auto repair lawsuit alleged the body shop bowed to pressure from plaintiff’s auto insurer to use the cheapest fix possible – despite knowing that it wasn’t safe. That meant instead of welding the new steal roof to the vehicle, as indicated in the manufacturer’s body repair manual, the piece was glued with an adhesive. So when the vehicle was struck, the roof buckled, the car’s safety cage collapsed and the fuel tank below the driver’s seat ruptured. Plaintiff husband was trapped under the steering wheel while flames engulfed the vehicle. Wife was pulled through the passenger window by another motorist, but it took significantly longer to extract the husband.

Had the auto repairs been done correctly, plaintiff expert witnesses opined, plaintiffs likely would have walked away with minor injuries.

The body shop’s director testified in his defense that procedures for repairs are guided by insurance. He testified auto insurers can dictate the OEM specifications by refusing to pay for anything more than the cheapest fix.

In general, it’s not in an auto insurer’s best interest to put an unsafe vehicle back on the road. That said, there are plenty of instances of auto insurers doing all they can to squeeze pennies. Auto repair companies aren’t absolved from conducting safe repairs or warning about the possible risks of the repairs that don’t meet vehicle manufacturer guidelines.

Auto mechanics and body repair shops can be held accountable in civil court when their repairs aren’t up to industry standards and/ or they breach a duty of care to consumers which ultimately results in a crash or exacerbation of injuries. Some examples might include:

Installing the wrong part;
Failure to repair or replace broken or worn parts;
Missed or wrong diagnosis of vehicle malfunction or safety issue;
Damaging the vehicle while attempting to repair it;
Making an illegal repair;
Failure to remove foreign objects/ debris/ other items during the repair.

This is not an isolated problem, considering the Federal Trade Commission’s report that auto repair fraud consistently ranks among the top consumer complaints received annually. The reality is when an auto repair shop performs unsatisfactory work, it not only cheats the consumer but also endangers the lives of everyone who drives that car and everyone who shares the road with it.

These claims are different from “negligent maintenance,” which holds the vehicle owner/ possessor liable for paying to keep their vehicle roadworthy and in safe working order.

Lawsuits alleging negligent auto repair are generally more complex than the average car accident case, and must be handled by a South Florida injury attorney who is experienced, knowledgeable and has a proven track record of success.

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

Additional Resources:

John Eagle Collision Center Must Pay $31.5 Million in Damages to Dallas Couple for Negligent Repair, November 2017, By Josh Cable, BodyShopBusiness.com

More Blog Entries:

Florida No-Fault Auto Insurance Repeal Hits Legislative Road Block, March 7, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Blog

Florida Senate Brake-Checks Texting-and-Driving Bill

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:48:24 GMT

Florida has one of the weakest protections against driver distraction in the nation. While a proposal to toughen our state’s anti-texting-and-driving law was passed by the state House and given Gov. Rick Scott’s blessing, the state Senate has reportedly pumped the brakes on the measure, with news outlets reporting Sent. Rob Bradley, R-Fleming Island, allowing it to stall in his committee for well over a month.

For his part, Bradley has cited concerns about potential racial profiling and the scope of police authority to view drivers’ cell phones during a traffic stop.

As it now stands, F.S. 316.305 prohibits motorists from texting, typing or reading messages, emails and social media posts while engaged in active driving. However, there are a plethora of exceptions, including no restrictions on radio broadcasts, engaging GPS navigation services or wireless communication that doesn’t require reading or the manual entry of data. A fine for a violation is just $50, but even those are rare given that it’s only a secondary offense, as opposed to a primary one. That means police cannot legally stop a driver observed texting-and-driving if that is the sole violation noted. The officer must also observe some other violation, such as speeding, weaving or red light running.

A study conducted last year by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles revealed there were nearly 50,000 car accidents in Florida caused by distracted driving – which is more than five crashes every single hour. These resulted in more than 3,500 serious injuries and an estimated 233 deaths.

The problem was most pervasive among younger drivers, in particular those between the ages of 20 and 204 (followed closely by 25-to-29-year-olds and 15-to-19-year-olds). Drivers under 30 accounted for 20,000 distracted driving crashes.

Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers know that in order to avoid a collision, motorists need to be able to perceive the danger, react and have enough time to stop. The amount of reaction time one has – even if they are a sufficient distance away from the vehicle ahead – is severely reduced when one isn’t paying attention. A driver who is traveling 40 mph needs at least 44 feet to perceive the distance, 44 feet to react and 101 feet to stop. That’s 186 feet total. Now consider that is little more than half a football field in length and that one can travel that in under 10 seconds at 40 mph. It takes a fraction of a second to make a difference between a close call and a life-altering tragedy.

While the Florida Senate declined to debate the texting-and-driving bill that would have made this a primary offense, lawmakers instead chose to debate:

Increasing bee colony theft fines;
Restricting public records access;
Designating Florida cracker cattle as the official state heritage cattle breed.

Meanwhile, distracted driving kills 17 people a month in Florida. The bill as written still would not impose sanctions for using your GPS or answering a phone call.

Initially, passage of the measure seemed likely because it had gained widespread bipartisan support. However, the American Civil Liberties Union has expressed concern that black motorists were twice as likely as white drivers to be stopped by police for failure to wear seat belts, and there is concern about how the law would be fairly applied. Some lawmakers have suggested passing the law – with a requirement to carefully track the racial identities of motorists stopped and cited for a follow-up examination of enforcement. However, no such amendment has yet been added and the bill seems unlikely to pass this session.

Those injured in car accidents who suspect the other driver of distraction should contact an experienced injury attorney to help investigate and explore legal options.

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

Additional Resources:

Florida senators believe these issues are more important than texting & driving, March 6, 2018, By Noah Pransky, 10 News

More Blog Entries:

Jury Finds South Florida Restaurant Vicariously Liable for Crash in $2M Verdict, July 29, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Florida No-Fault Auto Insurance Repeal Hits Legislative Road Block

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 16:47:23 GMT

A bill that would repeal Florida’s no-fault insurance law appears to have stalled out.

The state senate’s Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee overwhelmingly voted not to approve the measure, which would repeal Florida’s no-fault system requiring drivers to carry at least $10,000 in personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. The bill would resulted in a requirement to carry bodily injury coverage in its stead. Florida House members approved a similar version of the measures (HB9) in the first week of the legislative session. Although the bill is technically still alive, the legislative session ends in two days. A committee chairwoman (who voted against the bill) filed a motion to reconsider and temporarily postponed it, meaning it could potentially arise again. However, that committee isn’t expected to meet again prior to the close of the legislative session.

Florida’s no-fault system has long been the target for reform advocacy. PIP laws, codified in F.S. 627.736, require all drivers to carry at least $10,000 in medical and disability benefits and $5,000 in death benefits. (It should be noted the $10,000 rate was set in 1979, and is only worth today about one-eighth of what it was when the law was signed.) One can only access $2,000 of those injury benefits unless their injuries are severe and emergent. This no-fault coverage is extended regardless of who was at-fault for the crash. In order for a car accident victim to pursue damages from the at-fault driver and other third parties, they must meet the serious injury threshold, as outlined in F.S. 627.737, which requires proof that victim suffered:

Significant/ permanent loss of an important bodily function;
Permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability;
Significant and permanent scarring/ disfigurement;
Death.

The goal of the no-fault law is to reduce the number of Florida car accident lawsuits that can overburden the state’s court system. However, some have argued that it provides insufficient coverage to crash victims and makes it difficult to hold careless drivers accountable.

Florida is one of just two states that do not require drivers to carry bodily injury coverage, which is paid to cover the expenses of those injured by the insured’s careless or reckless driving. Most auto insurance policies do have some form of this coverage, though, as drivers are required to be personally responsible for up to $10,000 in damages for crashes they cause. Uninsured/ underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage cannot exceed the amount of one’s bodily injury liability coverage, and most drivers do want to make sure they have some protection if they struck by a driver with minimum insurance or no insurance at all.

Of course, there are those who prefer the current PIP system – like health care providers – because PIP pays nearly twice as much as Medicare does for the exact same procedures. One study conducted by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation concluded a repeal of Florida’s no-fault PIP system would reduce insurance premiums by 9.6 percent for liability coverage, or about $81 per car per year. For all coverage combined, it would amount to a reduction of 6.7 percent, study authors found.

The House version of this bill required a minimum $25,000 coverage for damages for injury or death of one person and $50,000 for injury or death of two or more people. The Senate proposal would have allowed for $20,000 in bodily injury protection for one person and $40,000 per crash, with minimums rising to $25,000/ $50,000 in two years when individual premiums would increase. The Senate version would also require drivers to carry $5,000 in medical payments coverage (MedPay).

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

Additional Resources:

Measure to Repeal No-Fault Auto Insurance Hits Wall in Senate, March 1, 2018, By Jim Turner, News Service of Florida

More Blog Entries:

General Negligence v. Premises Liability: An Important Distinction in Florida Personal Injury Claims, Feb. 21, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Attorney Blog

Jury Finds South Florida Restaurant Vicariously Liable for Crash in $2M Verdict

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:01:43 GMT

A South Florida seafood restaurant has been deemed liable to pay $2 million in damages after a federal jury determined the restaurant’s employee was acting in the course and scope of employment at the time of a crash that injured another driver. The question of exactly what the worker was doing at the time of the crash was central to the issue of vicarious liability – and whether the restaurant could be made to pay.

Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability in which a supervisory party (like an employer) can be held responsible for the negligent actions of a subordinate or associate (i.e., an employee). It stems from the belief that these supervisory parties have a right, ability or duty to control the actions of their subordinates. It’s not necessary to prove the supervisory party was actually negligent or even that it knew about the subordinate’s actions. This type of liability falls under the umbrella of a doctrine called respondeat superior, which is Latin for “let the master answer.”

In some cases, it’s obvious that a worker was acting in the course and scope of employment. An example might be a truck driver delivering cargo from a supplier to a receiver in a company-owned truck. However, if at any point that driver is side-tracked or is running a personal errand and the crash occurs at that time, defendant could argue the driver was not acting in the course and scope of employment and therefore the employer can’t be liable. That’s what defendant tried to argue in the recent case before the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida.more

According to court records, the 19-year-old seafood restaurant worker was reportedly on his way to purchase a television for the restaurant when he caused a crash that involved a 59-year-old pizza delivery driver. She suffered serious injuries that make it difficult for her to walk to this day. But when plaintiff sued the restaurant, defense argued the restaurant wasn’t vicariously liable because the worker had been side-tracked by a personal errand when a relative asked him to pick up several younger relatives from school.

As plaintiff was on-the-clock herself at the time of the crash, she was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. However, those benefits are limited to compensation for medical bills and a portion of lost wages. The at-fault driver’s father, as owner of the truck he was driving at the time of the crash, was also named as a defendant, and his auto insurance provider paid his $100,000 bodily injury liability limit. However, the vicarious liability case against the restaurant continued to trial.

Plaintiffs attorneys told the Daily Business Review they spent countless hours investigating the family and the route of defendant driver’s vehicle, presenting substantial evidence he was either on his way to the appliance store or returning to the restaurant at the time of the crash. The school from which he supposedly would have picked up his younger relatives was not open on the day in question.

The trial was bifurcated along issues of liability and damages. At the first trial last year, it was determined the driver was acting in the course and scope of employment. It didn’t hurt that defendants’ expert witnesses were never called after a Daubert hearing resulted in disallowing much of their testimony. The second trial was to ascertain whether plaintiff shared any of the responsibility and what her damages should be. (A finding of comparative fault by a plaintiff could reduce the amount of damages paid.) Jurors ruled the seafood restaurant worker was 100 percent at fault for the crash, and ordered the restaurant to pay $2 million, though that amount could be offset by previous insurance payouts in the case.

If you are injured in a Fort Lauderdale car accident, it’s important to explore all your legal options and trust your case to an injury attorney with ample experience.

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

Additional Resources:

Miami Restaurant and Fish Market on the Hook for $2M After Crash, Nov. 6, 2017, By Celia Ampel, Daily Business Review

More Blog Entries:

Proving Medical Bills, Lost Wages, Causally Related to Crash Injuries, Dec. 2, 2017, Florida Car Accident Attorney Blog

Enforceable Florida Texting Ban Mulled by State Legislators

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Sun, 21 Jan 2018 17:16:13 GMT

Those who patrol Florida’s deadly streets and highways regularly spot motorists texting and driving, but are often powerless to do anything about it, despite the known danger and the fact that such action is against the law. That’s because Florida is one of just a handful of states that has deemed texting to be a secondary offense for non-commercial drivers, meaning officers can’t stop the driver or issue a ticket unless the driver also committed some other offense. That may soon change, as The Associated Press reports state lawmakers are considering a measure that would classify texting-and-driving as a primary offense, one that would be worthy in and of itself to initiate a traffic stop.

This has the potential for a major impact in a state where some 2,700 people died in car accidents in 2017. It’s not known for certain how many of these crashes involved a texting driver, partially because unlike drunk driving, texting-and-driving is not so obviously traced. Meanwhile, the U.S. government opines that approximately 3,500 people are killed and 400,000 injured nationally in texting and other distracted driving accidents annually.

Florida is in company with three other states – Ohio, South Dakota and Nebraska – that make texting a secondary offense. Two other states have no law banning the practice, while another only imposes limitations for non-commercial drivers under 21.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that of those seven states that don’t classify texting and driving as a primary offense (or as an offense at all), five had car accident death rates that rose above the national average. Florida ranked No. 9. While the IIHS also reports that texting bans have no noticeable impact on the number of crashes, that research has been disputed by a number of other studies that found the opposite. Surveillance indicates the number of drivers who are texting dips dramatically in places with a ban that allows primary enforcement. Another study by the University of Alabama at Birmingham revealed a 3 percent decrease in the number of car accident deaths in states with an all-encompassing ban on texting drivers. These results were most pronounced among younger motorists.

Those who oppose the measure argue either that current measures are sufficient or that such a law would be disproportionately applied to minority motorists, as was seen following passage of a mandatory seat belt law. Lawmakers say that while such a measure would have value in improving safety, they would want to carefully track ticket citation statistics to ensure the laws aren’t unfairly applied.

F.S. 316.305, Florida’s current texting and driving law, prohibits anyone from operating a motor vehicle while manually using a communication device or reading such communications unless they are:

Reporting an emergency;
Making a call;
Using GPS
Obtaining information pertaining to road safety (including weather alerts);
Accessing radio broadcasts;
Using the device in a way that doesn’t require manual entry of multiple characters;
Talking on the phone;
Operating an autonomous vehicle.

A user’s billing records for cell phones are only accessible by investigators when the suspected distracted driver causes a crash resulting in death or personal injury – another aspect that makes tracking such incidents all the more difficult.

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

Additional Resources:

Texting Ban May Soon Be Enforced on Florida’s Deadly Roads, Dec. 30, 2017, Associated Press

More Blog Entries:

Snow Birds May Need to Obtain Florida Auto Insurance to Retain Their Right to File a Crash Claim, Dec. 19, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Florida Vehicle Collisions With Buildings an Increasing – and Deadly – Phenomenon

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 16:00:38 GMT

A woman was injured seriously recently when a vehicle crashed into her home as she sat at her kitchen table. The Orlando Sentinel reports the 61-year-old motorist reportedly failed to maneuver her vehicle properly at a curve in the road, causing her to continue straight into the residential structure. The 67-year-old resident was pinned and immobile until firefighters arrived to remove her.

Although such incidents tend to be reported as “freak accidents,” the reality is they occur with startling regularity. Home and auto insurer Ameriprise research reveals there are an average of 60 incidents daily wherein drivers crash their vehicles into retail outlets, homes, office buildings and restaurants. These incidents result in an average of 500 deaths annually, not to mention thousands of injuries. In fact, these types of car accidents claim more lives than lightning, tornadoes and earthquakes – combined. Economic losses for these collisions is estimated to be about $200 million every year, which includes both the cost for personal injury and wrongful death claims, as well as those for property damage.

Causes of these incidents are varied, but there are several trends the insurer has noted in the claims it reviewed. The three most common causes were:

Pedal Error – 28 percent. (Of these, 57 percent were caused by foot slip and 43 percent by accidentally stepping on the wrong pedal.)
Operator Error – 28 percent. (This would include incidents like those recently reported by the Sentinel.)
DUI – 18 percent.

Other causes included traffic accidents, medical incidents and burglaries.more

What’s especially disconcerting is it appears crashes are expected to increase, given the fact that many of those drivers involved in these cases are over the age of 65 and the number of drivers in this age classification are expected to more than double between 2017 and 2025.

When it comes to liability, obviously the first place our Fort Lauderdale injury attorneys will look will be the injured person’s own auto insurance. Florida, being a no-fault state when it comes to crashes, requires those injured to first access personal injury protection (PIP) benefits from their own insurer. Even though those injured may not have been in a vehicle at the time of the crash, they could still potentially access their own PIP benefits, as injuries occurred as a result of a motor vehicle collision. If injured parties did not have access to this coverage, they could potentially collect PIP from the driver’s insurer. This would provide up to $10,000 in coverage.

Individuals can step outside of this no-fault system if they meet the serious injury threshold, as outlined in F.S. 627.737(2). That is if the injury consisted in whole or in part of:

Significant/ permanent loss of an important bodily function;
Permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability;
Significant/ permanent scarring or disfigurement;
Death.

If the coverage allowable under defendant driver’s insurance is inadequate, we may explore uninsured/ underinsured motorist coverage from the victim’s auto insurer. If the incident occurred on commercial property, we might also see whether a premises liability claim against the property owner is in order. In some cases, property owners may have had a duty to install greater protection against such crashes (i.e., barriers near exposed pedestrian areas or parking spaces, better design of parking lots so vehicles can’t approach store entrances head-on, and discouragement of nose-in parking).

Our attorneys can help victims of these incidents recover rightful damages.

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

Additional Resources:

Driver crashes into house, injures woman sitting at kitchen table, Dec. 19, 2017, By Gal Tziperman Lotan, Orlando Sentinel

More Blog Entries:

Be Wary of Drunk Drivers in South Florida This New Year’s Holiday, Dec. 26, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Car Accident Lawsuit Settled for $8 Million

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Wed, 20 Dec 2017 19:14:12 GMT

A woman in Virginia has settled her car accident lawsuit for $8 million, according to a recent report from The Daily Press in Newport News. Our Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers know it is unusual for someone to receive such a high amount, it’s not unheard of – particularly in cases with catastrophic injury or death and especially when the motorist was on the job or in a company vehicle, as was the case here.

According to reports of the case, plaintiff suffered a closed-head traumatic brain injury, and as a result, lost the ability to earn a living, as well as partake in many activities of daily living. This kind of catastrophic injury results in a tremendous, lifelong loss of life enjoyment, which was likely something defendant took into account when agreeing to settle for such a significant sum (it’s the fourth-highest in Virginia to date, according to Virginia Lawyers Weekly).

The defendant in this case was a Massachusetts-based environmental services firm that was hired to clean out a number of tanks at a site in Virginia. It was a months-long, eight-person assignment. One of those workers was the purportedly negligent driver.

Police reported the 2014 crash occurred when the 59-year-old worker became intoxicated in his motel room and then climbed into a company pickup truck on his way to a local restaurant and bar. It was shortly after 8:30 p.m. when he slammed into the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle as she slowed down, preparing to stop for a red light. The force of the collision pushed the 56-year-old plaintiff’s vehicle into the intersection, where she was struck by another vehicle. Defendant driver’s blood-alcohol level was later measured to be 0.15 – nearly twice the legal limit.

Plaintiff’s injury lawyer accused the defendant driver of operating defendant employer’s vehicle carelessly, recklessly and negligently. Defendant later pleaded guilty to DUI, paid a $500 fine and had his license restricted for a year.

Prior to the collision, plaintiff was a licensed practical nurse (LPN), but she has not been able to return to work. Her attorneys initially sought $30 million in damages.

Driving a vehicle while drunk is failure to use reasonable care.

As for how the company could be held liable, our Fort Lauderdale injury attorneys know that here in Florida, employers can be vicariously liable for the negligent conduct of their employees who are acting in the course and scope of employment. Vehicle owners, too, can be vicariously liable for harm caused by the negligent operation of their motor vehicles – even if they weren’t behind the wheel. Vicarious liability means one does not need to prove the defendant was negligent, but rather defendant was responsible for the harm caused by someone who was negligent.

In this case, however, the allegation was direct negligence due to failure to control the conduct of a servant. Specifically, there was another incident one year prior to this crash where a worker for the same company drove drunk with a company vehicle and killed two people. After that, the company instructed supervisors to better control the vehicles, but there is no evidence policy changed much. While the supervisors’ vehicles were kept under lock-and-key, crews had free reign to use company pickup trucks to stores and restaurants. They only had to go to the hotel clerk and identify themselves as an employee and they were given the keys.

The company conceded negligence prior to the trial, which lasted several days. Before jury deliberations, though, both sides reached a settlement.

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

Additional Resources:

$8 million settlement reached over 2014 Newport News car crash, Nov. 27, 2017, By Peter Dujardin, The Daily Press

More Blog Entries:

Pizza Deliver Crash Raises Questions of Employer Liability, Nov. 14, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Attorney Blog

Snow Birds May Need to Obtain Florida Auto Insurance to Retain Their Right to File a Crash Claim

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Sat, 09 Dec 2017 16:08:49 GMT

Florida auto insurance laws require that if you have a car in the state for more than 90 days annually – and those days need not be consecutive – then you are required to comply with Florida’s registration requirements. You aren’t necessarily required to obtain insurance if you are regularly driving back-and-forth to your home state, but if you park the vehicle here year-round, you need to obtain auto insurance for it here. Also if you are required to register it here, you’ll be required to obtain auto insurance here too.

This can create headaches for snowbirds, but it’s important to discuss these matters openly and honestly with a licensed insurance agent because, as our personal injury lawyers know, failure to do so could result in a lost opportunity to collect damages.

This was what happened recently in New Jersey to a driver who, a court concluded, wrongly registered and insured his car in Florida, despite being a New Jersey resident. Law.com reports a judge in the Essex County Superior Court dismissed plaintiff’s personal injury lawsuit, finding that allowing him to proceed would violate insurance statutes because he fraudulently obtained car insurance in Florida.

Mind you, the issue was not the plaintiff wasn’t seriously injured or that defendant driver wasn’t at-fault. The judge’s ruling was clear to say plaintiff was seriously injured (though no other details of the crash are included in the recent ruling). However, the judge stated that plaintiff was living and working in New Jersey, and had been for five years prior to the 2014 crash. He also kept his vehicle in that state. However, because plaintiff allegedly determined it was cheaper to have his vehicle insured in Florida, he obtained a Florida driver’s license, registered his vehicle in Florida and maintained a Florida auto insurance policy.

Defendant sought dismissal of the car accident lawsuit, arguing state law requires those who live there and who keep their car there to also purchase insurance there. The trial court judge agreed that plaintiff’s vehicle is not considered insured pursuant to state law.

Plaintiff argued he technically did have insurance and that state law pertaining to this issue was only to prohibit injured motorists from taking legal action when they personally had no auto insurance. The judge did not agree and found plaintiff had committed a crime in violation of the state’s insurance fraud statute. The judge further stated the law was written with the intent to prevent drivers in New Jersey from keeping their vehicle in the state, while obtaining cheaper insurance in another state.

Plaintiff’s injury attorneys say they plan to appeal the ruling.

Although it doesn’t have any direct bearing on courts in Florida, it’s worthwhile to explore because Florida has an estimated 1 million seasonal residents who flock to the state every winter. It’s important for these motorists to understand their responsibilities when it comes to auto insurance so that if they are in a collision here – or even in another state – that they are properly insured.

The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles outlines the requirement, noting that anyone with a vehicle in the state for more than 90 days out of 365 must purchase PIP and property damage liability auto insurance coverage.

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

Additional Resources:

Judge Bars Lawsuit by Injured NJ Driver Who Maintained Fla. Insurance, Nov. 30, 2017, By Michael Booth, New Jersey Law Journal

More Blog Entries:

Pizza Deliver Crash Raises Questions of Employer Liability, Nov. 14, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Attorney Blog

Proving Medical Bills, Lost Wages, Causally Related to Crash Injuries

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Sat, 02 Dec 2017 15:33:34 GMT

If one suffers an injury in a Florida car accident caused by another’s negligence, there may be an opportunity to step outside the state’s “no-fault” system (which allows for up to $10,000 in compensation through PIP benefits) and take action against the other driver. However, in order to ensure the damages are covered, one must prove they are causally related to the crash.

In many crash cases, this is a fairly straightforward process, particularly if the injured party immediately sought medical attention. However, causation can be tougher to prove when one waits to obtain medical care or when injuries are latent, not becoming fully apparent until days or weeks later. It may also be an issue when not all alleged injuries are physical. This is not to say one cannot collect compensation for emotional or mental damages, but they can be harder to prove.

Recently, the Montana Supreme Court weighed this very issue, reversing a summary judgment in favor of plaintiff (injured party), finding there were questions of material fact as to whether the medical bills and lost wages she claimed as damages were causally related to the crash.

According to court records, the crash in question occurred in 2014 when the allegedly at-fault driver rear-ended her vehicle. The driver in the rear was cited for careless driving, as the responding officer deemed him responsible.

Plaintiff did not immediately seek medical treatment, but she did see a physician later that day. She was diagnosed with right shoulder strain and whiplash. Following that diagnosis, plaintiff met with numerous health care providers for treatment of both physical and psychiatric injuries. These professionals included a chiropractor, neurologist, physical therapist, counselor and masseuse.

Soon after the car accident, plaintiff hired a personal injury lawyer, who demanded advance payment of medical cost from at-fault driver’s auto insurer. The insurer concluded its insured was responsible for the crash and did make several advance payments to her for lost wages and medical expenses – totaling more than $53,000. Several months later, insurer sought medical records and asked plaintiff to undergo an independent medical examination to ascertain whether ongoing medical expenses were related to the collision. Plaintiff refused both requests.

Insurer asked one of its contracting physicians to review her medical records from immediately after the crash. Based on this, the insurer announced it would no longer cover plaintiff’s medical bills or lost wages, determining they were no longer causally related to the crash.

That’s when plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit, seeking payment of ongoing expenses. Plaintiff was compelled to undergo several independent medical exams, and several expert witnesses were called to testify. An expert for the defense argued her injuries were almost entirely psychological, and there was no physiological basis for her reports of ongoing pain. Plaintiff’s experts flatly disagreed.

Plaintiff sought summary judgment on the issue of medical causation and damages (the only matters at issue in this case), which the trial court granted. The court ruled the opinions of the doctors did not establish an issue of material fact as to medical causation and damages and the doctors lacked foundation. The state supreme court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The state high court ruled the lower court was wrong to disregard the affidavits and opinions of the testifying physicians, and that those opinions did create disputed issues of material fact.

Our Fort Lauderdale car accident attorneys recognize this case underscores that car accident litigation is often about so much more than just who was at-fault. Here, the question of fault was undisputed, but establishing causation and damages was just as important.

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

Additional Resources:

Teeter v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., Nov. 28, 2017, Montana Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Self-Driving Trucks Could Slash Florida Truck Accidents, Nov. 20, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Attorney Blog

Pizza Deliver Crash Raises Questions of Employer Liability

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:42:55 GMT

When an employee acting in the course and scope of employment is negligent and causes injury to someone else, the employer can be held vicariously liable for those injuries – even if there is no evidence the employer did anything wrong or breached any duty of care.

However, Florida employers may also be held directly liable if there is evidence they breached some duty of care. Usually we see this manifested in legal theories such as negligent hiring or negligent supervision.

Recently, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed a long-standing rule in that state that plaintiffs have to pick one or the other: Vicarious liability or direct liability.

According to court records, defendant driver was delivering pizzas while employed at a franchise for a large chain pizza company. While she was driving, her vehicle crashed into the back of a scooter operated by decedent, who was thrown onto the road and subsequently run over by another car. He died as a result of his crash-related injuries.

Decedent’s estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit against both drivers, as well as against the pizza franchise firm. The estate alleged decedent’s death was directly and proximately caused by the pizza chain’s negligent hiring, training and supervision of defendant driver. Estate also alleged the company was liable for it’s employee’s negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Defendant pizza chain moved for a partial summary judgment. It alleged that because it had already conceded its employee was acting in the course and scope of employment, it could only be held responsible for decedent’s death through the vicarious liability established by respondeat superior. The trial court agreed with defendant pizza chain and granted partial summary judgment, effectively dismissing direct liability claims of negligent supervision, training and hiring.

The estate appealed, and the appellate court reversed and remanded. The appellate court ruled the estate could seek both theories of recovery because the claims were separate torts, with one not derivative of the employee’s negligence. The appellate panel ruled this was also more consistent with the state’s comparative fault law, which allows for a proportionate reduction of damages based on a plaintiff’s own negligence.

Defendant pizza company then asked for a review by the state supreme court, which was granted. In turn, the state supreme court vacated the appellate court’s ruling.

The case law upon which the supreme court based its reasoning was decided in 1974. In Tindall v. Enderle, an employee of a tavern shot and killed a patron. The estate of the patron filed a negligence action against the employee, as well as against the establishment. Plaintiff alleged the business was directly liable for negligent hiring and retention of the employee. Before trial, the bar stipulated that at the time of the fatal shooting, the worker was an employee and he was acting within the course and scope of employment. The bar also filed a motion to exclude all evidence of the worker’s prior assaults on patrons – which was the basis of the estate’s claim that the tavern was negligent in hiring and keeping this employee. Trial court granted the defense motion. On appeal, the appellate court ruled the trial court’s decision was proper, even though it eliminated the negligent hiring and retention claim, because it was not separate and distinct from the respondeat superior claim.

If you are injured in a Fort Lauderdale car accident and the driver at the time was on-the-job or driving a company vehicle, complex legal questions like this may arise. Your best course of action is to discuss your legal options with an experienced car accident attorney.

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

Additional Resources:

Sedam v. 2JR Pizza Enterprises, LLC, Oct. 31, 2017, Indiana Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Blood-Alcohol of Pedestrian in Accident Allowable as Evidence in Wrongful Death Lawsuit, Oct. 11, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Attorney Blog

Florida Distracted Driving Accident Risk High

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:40:46 GMT

In a recent ride-along with Florida Highway Patrol troopers in South Florida, an NBC affiliate news crew took note of numerous drivers texting, scrolling and talking away behind the wheel. Despite observations of this extremely dangerous behavior, the trooper was without an actionable cause to stop these drivers. That’s because Florida has one of the weakest distracted driving laws in the country, despite this being a serious problem known to be even more prevalent than drunk driving.

Florida is one of a handful of states where texting-and-driving remains a secondary offense. That means an officer must also observe some other traffic offense before a traffic stop can be initiated and a texting-while-driving citation issued.

F.S. 316.305, also known as the Florida Ban on Texting While Driving Law, prohibits the use of an electronic device (manually typing, sending, reading or researching data or interpersonal communication) while operating a motor vehicle. There are a number of exceptions to this rule (i.e., researching traffic or weather alerts, those who are searching radio broadcasts use of a system for navigation), but the biggest issue is the fact that it’s a secondary offense. Plus, even if a fine is issued, it’s only $30 for a first-time offense.

Mountains of evidence suggest more must be done to curb this problem, particularly in Florida. For example, EverDrive’s Safe Driving Report 2016-2017 reveals Florida ranked second-worst in the country for distracted driving, with 44 percent of drives containing at least one distracted driving event. (On top of that, researchers pointed out, Florida drivers exceeded the speed limit in 38 percent of trips and 32 percent of drives involved harsh braking.)

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a recent report revealing approximately 3.3 percent of drivers in 2016 hold cell phones to their ears while driving, translating to an estimated 481,000 passenger vehicles driven by people using handheld cell phones at any typical daylight moment. The rate was higher among female drivers than male, and was the highest among those ages 16 to 24.

Meanwhile, the number of drivers visibly manipulating handheld devices was roughly 2.1 percent, with younger drivers again observed at higher rates. Those in vans and sport utility vehicles were also noted to be bigger offenders, as were those in rural areas and on weekdays during rush hour.

All this was based on some 48,000 vehicles observed by researchers at 1,600 sites across the country.

Although no state entirely bans all forms of cell phone use by drivers, there are 14 that ban talking on a handheld cell phone. Each of these states also has a primary enforcement law, intended to allow officers to cite drivers who use handheld cell phones despite the absence of any other offense.

Proof of distracted driving in a civil personal injury case in Fort Lauderdale may be based on physical as well as circumstantial evidence. Your injury lawyer may gather data directly from the tortfeasor’s phone (which would include time stamps on messages, photos and other posts). We may also take into account evidence that the driver failed to initiate any evasive maneuvers (a fact that can often indicate inattention), as well as witness statements of the driver’s behavior – including the driver’s own statements.

In cases where the at-fault driver was on-the-clock or driving a company vehicle, employer liability may also be an issue worth exploring.

Having an experienced injury lawyer working for you following a distracted driving accident can make a substantial difference in your ability to collect damages.

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

Additional Resources:

Ride-along: Catching distracted drivers in SWFL, Sept. 26, 2017, By Rachel Polansky, NBC-2

More Blog Entries:

Florida Court: Insurer Required to Cover $15M Car Accident Verdict, Sept. 22, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Florida Court: Insurer Required to Cover $15M Car Accident Verdict

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:27:43 GMT

An auto insurer’s failure to comply with the state’s Claims Administration Statute, F.S. 627.426, meant no genuine issue of material fact was left to consider regarding insurance coverage of an absconded drunk driving suspect who allegedly killed five people in a horrific crash.

Plaintiffs, parents of one of those killed, sued defendant driver for wrongful death resulting from the crash. The incident happened on I-95 outside Miami, when defendant drove his mother’s vehicle onto the shoulder of the highway, plowing into seven other vehicles that had just been involved in a chain reaction collision and had parked in the emergency lane. Victims ranged in age from 22 to 57. (Plaintiff’s son was a recent university graduate.)

Defendant driver’s blood alcohol level was 0.127, well above the legal limit of 0.08, and that was several hours after the crash. He also smelled of alcohol, a trooper noted, and allegedly admitted to drinking at a local nightclub prior to the collision.

The 26-year-old defendant, however, had no intention of sticking around for trial on five DUI manslaughter charges, for which he faced a maximum sentence of 75 years in prison. He was a real estate appraiser with no criminal history, he fled the country before trial. He has family in Nicaragua, but his whereabouts are still unknown.

At the civil trial, he was represented in absentia by a trial attorney hired by his car insurance company. His mother told jurors she had no idea where he is.

Jurors awarded car accident wrongful death plaintiffs $15 million in damages to plaintiffs in economic damages, as well as another $350,000 in punitive damages.

With the question of the driver’s liability settled, the issue then became who was going to pay for it.

Auto insurer notified defendant driver of its reservation of rights because the driver failed to cooperate with the insurer’s investigation. In fact, numerous reservation of rights letters were issued. Subsequent to this, the auto insurer appointed an attorney to defend driver in the civil lawsuit – and this representation extended for years.

After jurors decided the case in favor of plaintiffs, insurer sought to deny coverage on the basis of the coverage-defense of breach of cooperation.

However, before the appellate court, this defense failed because insurer did not comply with the claims Administration Statute, which states liability insurers can’t deny coverage on the basis of this defense unless:

Insurer knew or should have known within 30 days of the defense, asserted this in a notice of reservation of rights given to named insured by registered official via certified mail to the last known address of insured or by hand delivery;
Within two months of receiving a summons and complaint naming insured either gives written notice of refusal to defend insured or obtains a non-waiver agreement from insured or retains independent counsel agreeable to both parties.

Just based on the plain language of the policy, the court held insurer failed to meet these basic requirements. Not only did insurer not send a written refusal to defend within 30 days, insurer continued to defend the driver in court for years. For this reason, insurer was liable to pay damages to wrongful death plaintiff.

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

Additional Resources:

GEICO v. Mukamal, Aug. 23, 2017, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal

More Blog Entries:

Impact of South Florida Motorcycle Accidents Lessened with Helmets, July 30, 2017, Broward Car Accident Lawyer Blog