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

Here in Florida, the percentage of uninsured drivers in Florida was approximately 24 percent, or about 1 in 5. That’s the second-highest uninsured driver rate in the country. The cost of insurance can’t be discounted as a primary reason for this. The federal researchers concluded that a 40-year-old man with a clean driving record and a strong credit score would pay $1,655 annually for car insurance. That’s 25 percent more than the national average.

When researchers looked at Florida ZIP codes, they found that among all of Florida’s 19 million residents, about 41 percent – or 7.9 million people – live in ZIP codes that have high concentrations of people who are considered under-served. Nearly 30 percent of all people in those ZIP codes pay more than 2 percent of their income on car insurance, which amounts to about 3 million people.more

The state requires every driver of every vehicle with four wheels to obtain auto insurance coverage, with a minimum of $10,000 in personal injury protection benefits and $10,000 in property damage. Drivers who have prior crashes or other violations may also have to carry at least $10,000 in bodily injury liability coverage and $20,000 in coverage per occurrence.

State law does not require drivers to carry uninsured/ underinsured motorist coverage, but F.S. 627.727 does require auto insurance companies to offer it, and customers can only turn it down if they do so in writing. However, as our Fort Lauderdale injury lawyers can explain, uninsured/ underinsured motorist coverage is critical – particularly when we consider how many people in Florida are not insured.

Uninsured motorist coverage will cover you in the event you are:

• Struck by a driver who doesn’t have any insurance;
• Struck by a driver who is not identified (i.e., hit-and-run).

Underinsured motorist coverage will cover in the event you are:

• Struck by a driver who doesn’t have enough bodily injury liability coverage to foot the bill for the full extent of your damages, which can easily exceed six figures if you’re seriously hurt.

This type of coverage can be especially helpful when there are numerous people injured in the same accident, and they’re all vying for a slice of the same pie. If a bodily injury liability policy offers up to $15,000 per person but only $25,000 per incident and there are two of you who are equally injured, the most you will get is $12,500. If you can supplement that with compensation from UM/ UIM coverage, you’ll have a much better chance of being fully compensated.

UM/ UIM coverage can also be offered to those who have been injured in a bicycle accident or pedestrian accident, even though they were not actually behind the wheel of a motor vehicle at the time of the crash.

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

Additional Resources:

Millions Live Where Car Insurance Is Unaffordable, Study Says, Jan. 25, 2017, By Ann Carrns, The New York Times

More Blog Entries:

Entila v. Cook – Suing a Co-Worker for Personal Injury, Jan. 26, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Technically and statistically speaking, New Year’s Eve isn’t actually horrible when to impaired drivers. The worst comes after midnight, on New Year’s Day. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, more than half of all fatal crashes on New Year’s Day involve a driver who was drunk or impaired. Intoxication by alcohol is typically measured by whether one had a blood-alcohol concentration that exceeded 0.08.

New Year’s Day exceeds even July 4th when it comes to the percentage of fatal crashes stemming from alcohol intoxication. On that day, 42 percent of all deadly accidents involve a drunk driver. The third is St. Patrick’s Day, on which 40 percent of all roadway deaths involve impaired motorists.

If you are imbibing this New Year, consider reminding yourself about the seriousness of the consequences of driving drunk and take the time to plan ahead. Bear in mind that even if you “sleep it off” for a few hours, it may not be enough if you really indulged. Even just having a hangover, you could technically still be too drunk to drive. And there isn’t any fast way to sober up. You can’t eat your way sober. You can’t drink water or coffee to make yourself sober. The only thing that will make you sober, eventually, is time.

Part of the problem too is that people just aren’t the best at judging whether they have had too much to drink. A single, standard drink – a 12-oz beer or a 5-oz glass of wine – is all an average person can reasonably be expected to metabolize in an hour. There are other variables that could affect that, but this is the average. Go just a bit beyond that, as many people do on New Year’s Eve, and you will quickly find yourself over the limit. Now this generally wouldn’t be a problem, unless you then choose to get behind the wheel of a vehicle.

What if it’s a friend who wants to drive? MADD suggests:

Never letting anyone get behind the wheel of a car drunk, if you can help it.

• Calmly suggest other alternatives.
• Take their car keys.
• If you can’t stop them, call law enforcement.
• Never get in a car with someone who is drunk.
• Contact law enforcement if you spot a motorist driving erratically.
• If friends come over and drink, make sure they have a safe ride home or a place to stay.

Drunk driving simply isn’t worth the price – not just the dollar amount, but the potential loss of innocent lives. If you have been injured or have lost a loved one in a Fort Lauderdale drunk driving accident, our injury lawyers can help you determine the best course of legal action.

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

Additional Resources:

Plan Ahead this New Year’s Eve, December 2012, MADD

More Blog Entries:

Motorcycle Riders in Construction Zones Face Hazards, Nov. 11, 2016, Fort Myers Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Blog

The Florida Supreme Court is considering a proposal that would revert the courts back to the Frye standard. (The Florida courts can take action without the legislators on this point because it concerns a procedural element of the court.) Civil plaintiff attorneys argue the Daubert standards are too stringent and serve as a barrier to legal remedy in legitimate claims.

To understand why the importance of this standard matters in civil personal injury lawsuits, we look at the recent case of Sims v. Kia Motors of America, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Here, the viability of expert witness testimony was critical to the product liability claim in a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from a fatal car accident.more

According to court records, family members of decedent filed this product liability lawsuit against auto manufacturer Kia after their father died in the back seat of a 2010 Kia Soul that burst into flames after a sign struck by the driver pierced the fuel tank. The driver collided with another car at an intersection, and the impact caused the car to spin and, in turn, strike various objects. One of those was a “YIELD” sign, which became disconnected upon impact. The base of the sign passed underneath the vehicle and impacted the fuel tank. This tore a large hole in the tank. Gasoline spilled over the roadway. When the vehicle stopped, the driver and front seat passenger safely got out of the car. The three passengers in the back, however, were trapped. Decedent was one of those.

Because the fuel tank ruptured, the car became engulfed in flames. Decedent died in the fire.

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the maker of the vehicle, alleging the manufacturer had a duty to make sure the gas tank wasn’t susceptible to failure and that, even if a fire does start, the vehicle should be designed so that it does not immediately explode into the passenger cabin.

Plaintiffs presented two expert witnesses, engineers. One was to investigate how the sign struck the fuel tank and another who planned to testify there was a safer alternative design that would have prevented this fuel tank rupture. Defense sought to exclude some or all of this testimony on grounds it was unreliable and failed to meet the Daubert Standard. District court granted the motion and plaintiff appealed.

The 5th DCA carefully examined the methodology of both experts. As to the expert who was slated to testify about how the sign pierced the tank, the court excluded the part of his evidence that asserted a “downward displacement theory” because it was not scientifically reliable, and neither was his use of the differential diagnosis approach.” In looking at the other expert witness’s testimony, the court concluded the theory that fuel tank straps and fuel tank shields could prevent these sort of incidents was unreliable. Therefore, the 5th DCA affirmed.

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

Additional Resources:

Sims v. Kia Motors of America, Oct. 5, 2016, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

More Blog Entries:

Student Injured in Musical at High School Suing, Sept. 29, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

In a personal, Chapter 7 bankruptcy, an individual is able to discharge most personal debts that they are unable to pay. His or her assets may be divvied up to satisfy existing creditors to whatever extent possible. In the event that individual is the defendant in a personal injury lawsuit, those debts may be included (though generally not if they arise from one’s intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle). In the event the individual is a personal injury lawsuit plaintiff, courts typically allow that individual to retain their standing in the litigation (as opposed to being forced to turn it over to the bankruptcy trustee) and keep whatever compensation they receive from that proceeding. However, injury victims generally have to ask the bankruptcy court expressly for permission in this. Failure to do so could result in a situation like what happened in Morton.

The court noted part of the price debtors must pay to have their debts more or less discharged and make a fresh start is to detail all their property interests so the bankruptcy trustee can dole out portions of it to creditors. Among these property interests that must be listed are personal injury claims of the person in debt.

In this case, plaintiff failed to list her personal injury claim, which meant it became part of the bankruptcy estate – at least initially.

Here’s what happened:

Plaintiff was involved in a car accident with defendant, who at the time was on-the-job. Almost three years after the fact – but within the personal injury statute of limitations in that state – plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit, asserting she had been injured by defendant who was acting in the course of his employment. Between the time of the accident and filing her personal injury lawsuit, plaintiff also happened to file for personal bankruptcy. That action was complete, and she was discharged of her debts.

However, she had not listed her (then-potential) personal injury lawsuit as a possible asset or as exempt property. There is no dispute that this was done out of ignorance rather than some attempt to deliberately conceal it. So by way of bankruptcy law, the claim became part of her bankruptcy estate.

When the bankruptcy came to light in her personal injury lawsuit, both parties started racing to get a ruling in their favor. Plaintiff sought help from the bankruptcy court to re-open the case, list the personal injury claim as exempt property and restore her standing to the claim. Defendant sought in state court to have the personal injury lawsuit dismissed for plaintiff’s lack of standing on grounds the claim didn’t belong to plaintiff – it belonged to bankruptcy trustee.

Plaintiff was awarded reinstatement from the bankruptcy court after the case was re-opened, and the court made that decision retroactive to when she first filed her personal injury lawsuit. At almost the same time, defendant driver and his employer were awarded that dismissal, finding plaintiff lacked standing and it was now too late – past the statute of limitations – to amend or refile. Plaintiff returned to state court with the bankruptcy order in hand, asking the judge to reconsider, but he declined.

Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Special Appeals reversed and the state high court affirmed that decision. The court ruled that because the bankruptcy court had re-vested plaintiff’s personal standing and related it back to her earlier filing, this was sufficient for her to continue with her case.

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

Additional Resources:

Morton v. Scholtzhauer, Aug. 19, 2016, Maryland Court of Appeals

More Blog Entries:

Great West Cas. Co. v. Robbins – Fatal Truck Accident Lawsuit Insurance Battle, Aug. 17, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Today, phones have become so much more. They are our maps. Our social calendars. Our means to connect with current contacts and decades-old pals. Our music. Our clock. Our books. Our calculator. Our news source. And so much more.

We aren’t the only ones who have taken note. Because for all the good things that having this technology at our fingertips does, it can be deadly in the hands of a driver. Far too often, distraction turns deadly. In an effort to curb the risk of car accidents caused by mobile phone distraction, auto insurance companies are increasingly giving drivers an option: Download our use tracking app, and get a break on your insurance rates.

Some drivers who use it say it makes them better drivers because it forces them think before picking up the phone while the vehicle is in motion.

These apps track whether you are Snapchatting behind the wheel, talking while changing lanes or speeding during your long commute. In some cases, that longer commute could count against you too, as the more you drive on a daily basis the higher your chances of being involved in an auto accident.

The technology works by using sensors that already exist in many smartphones, which measure how fast a person is going, which direction they are traveling, whether there is a sudden stop and where they are. Mobile phone applications that track driver habits can tell the insurance company how well you’re driving. The insurer hopes you will download it and then forget it.

Still, there are many questions raised by officials about how insurance companies are using this information and who all can have access to it. As the president of the Insurance Information Institute told The Boston Globe, auto insurance companies are tapping into their customers’ digital footprint. Insurers believe that when they can assess the insurance risk on a regular basis, it’s probably more accurate.

The idea isn’t new, but older versions never realy caught on. For example, Progressive introduced a feature called “Snapshot” years ago that could be used to track the driver’s travel distance, speed and braking. But they were pricey and consumers found them bulky and tough to install.

Insurers are investing in the newer technology for a number of reasons. One is that almost everyone has a phone already, so it’s widely accessible. Secondly, it will be less expensive and difficult to install. And finally, they hope that the fact that it’s on their phones will encourage younger drivers – i.e., those statistically most likely to run into problems with distracted driving – to use it.

However, some state insurance regulators have questions they want to be answered before the market gets flooded. Namely, they want to know about how the companies intend to handle privacy, how truly accurate the data is and how available it will be to all or most users (i.e., will those who are already struggling financially be at a disadvantage).

Insurers say there is currently no penalty when the companies detect poor driving, but consumer advocates say that is probably the next likely move.

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

Additional Resources:

Checking Facebook while you drive? That could be a hit on your insurance. June 9, 2016, By Derdre Fernandes, The Boston Globe

More Blog Entries:

Estate of Summers v. Nisbet – Deadly Fire and Prioritizing Victim Claims, June 22, 2016, Car Accident Attorney Blog

Now, the family of that victim, Corey Allicock, is suing:

• Uber
• The Uber Driver
• The Deputy

Although investigators did not fault Seminole County Sheriff’s Deputy Scott Sullivan in the crash, witnesses who saw the deputy just before the crash said he was traveling 60 mph on the road. Authorities later revealed he was on his way to an emergency domestic violence call. However, it is undisputed he had not activated his emergency lights and siren. The 73-year-old Uber driver, meanwhile, was cited for running a red light and for causing the young man’s death. He has not driven for Uber since the crash.more

Our Fort Lauderdale Uber accident lawyers know this kind of case is becoming more common, as ride-sharing services have gained popularity. The good news is that insurance coverage for accidents caused by Uber drivers has improved greatly in recent years. As of March 2016, Uber offers the following limits on liability:

• $1 million of liability coverage per incident. Drivers’ liability to third parties is covered from the moment a driver first accepts a trip until that trip’s conclusion.
• $1 million of uninsured/ underinsured motorist bodily injury coverage per incident. So if a passenger is injured by a car accident caused by another driver who lacked insurance or who didn’t have enough insurance, the $1 million UM/ UIM policy will kick in.
• $50,000/ $100,000/ $25,000 coverage between trips. That means if an Uber driver is involved in an accident while he or she is on duty but not actively engaged in transporting or picking up a customer, this coverage would apply. Normally, that driver’s own personal auto insurance would kick in during these times, but Uber offers this additional lawyer of coverage in case it does not. This amount meets or exceeds the minimum requirements for third party liability service in the U.S.

Still in a wrongful death lawsuit, it is possible that damages could exceed $1 million, and that is why it is smart in this case to explore the possibility that more than one driver is at-fault.

Investigators say the young man was on his way home from a holiday party to the condo he shared with his girlfriend. The crash happened at 1:40 a.m., and authorities don’t believe any other drivers saw the actual crash.

The Uber driver suffered serious injuries as well. He had a fairly good track record, having offered some 800 rides from April 2015 to December 2015, and having a customer rating of 4.8 out of 5.

The deputy, meanwhile, suffered a fractured neck. A passenger who was riding with the deputy, a new recruit who was slated to begin working with the agency, also suffered injuries.

Allicock died of a combination of the impact and loss of blood.

Plaintiffs in the case allege negligence by both the Uber driver and the deputy played a role in the crash, and therefore in Allicock’s death.

If you have been injured in a Florida Uber accident, we can help you recover damages.

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

Additional Resources:

Crash victim’s family files lawsuit against deputy, Uber driver, April 19, 2016, By Erik Sandoval, News 6/ ClickOrlando.com

More Blog Entries:

Construction of Guardrails on Alligator Alley Faces Criticism, May 6, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

According to the complaint in Maynard v. McGee and Snapchat, filed in a Georgia state court, plaintiff alleges a critical cause of the crash was the mobile software produced and made available by Snapchat.

For those unfamiliar, Snapchat is a messaging app that allows users to take photos or videos and than add a caption, doodle or lens graphic over the top and send it to a friend. Users can also create “stories” and broadcast them publicly – either to everyone or just to your followers. Some of these images can only be viewed for a short period of time before they disappear.

What does this have to do with car accidents? A recently-added feature to the app allows users to track their speed and then superimpose that speed onto an image taken by the user. Points are issued to those who use this feature. Snapchat insists there are many reasonable uses for this feature. For example, runners may want to capture their speed and their picture to share with friends.

However, plaintiff alleges the app clearly encourages users to play on their phones while driving, posing a serious health and safety hazard not only to themselves but to others.

The facts of this case unfolded in September 2015 in Spalding County, GA. According to the complaint, an 18-year-old driver with two friends in the car was driving her father’s Mercedes Benz on a Thursday at around 11:15 p.m. She reportedly wanted to post an image of herself driving fast. She pushed down the accelerator and captured a speed of 80 mph on her device. She then allegedly dialed up the speed to 90 mph. Then, 100 mph.

Soon after, the complaint alleges, plaintiff lost control of her vehicle. At 107 mph, the complainant alleges, she shot across the left lane and struck plaintiff’s vehicle, sending it careening off the road down an embankment. Plaintiff, who had just begun his shift as an Uber driver, was seriously injured. He incurred a traumatic brain injury. He spent more than a month in the intensive care unit. His weight plummeted by 50 pounds. He is now unable to work. He can no longer take care of himself.

Meanwhile, the teen driver reportedly snapped another picture of herself, while in the ambulance. Lying on a stretcher, blood dripping down her face, she took a selfie, and captioned it, “Lucky to be Alive.”

Indeed.

Plaintiff in this car accident lawsuit says Snapchat should have known the risk it was creating because other users had used the device for this very same purpose. In fact, one user allegedly posted a snap of himself driving his vehicle at speeds of more than 140 mph. What’s more, the company incentivized this behavior by giving users points (albeit worthless points) for uploading their speeds.

For its part, the social media platform insists that it is not to be used in any way that distracts from driving or results in users violating traffic safety laws. This disclaimer exists in its terms of use. However, it’s unclear how many users actually take the time to read these notices, let alone abide them.

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

Additional Resources:

Snapchat ‘Speed Filter’ Led to Georgia Car Crash, Lawsuit Alleges, April 28, 2016, By Elizabeth Chuck, CNBC

More Blog Entries:

Florida Day Care Injury Prompts Police Report, April 29, 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

Unfortunately, because the defendant is a municipality, the award is capped at $100,000. The city hasn’t yet said whether it will appeal the decision.

Plaintiff, 52, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her son just a few weeks before Christmas 2010. Defendant Daniel Gowans, a Fort Lauderdale police officer, was responding to a domestic violence call when he arrived at the intersection of Southeast Fourth Avenue and Sunrise Boulevard. His cruiser collided with the vehicle driven by plaintiff’s son. As a result of that impact, plaintiff’s wrist was broken in eight different places.more

In lawsuits like this, police officers and their employers are granted certain protections – known as sovereign immunity – in many personal injury lawsuits.

However, there are waivers to this immunity, and one of the more common is for vehicle liability, when police or other government employees are involved in auto accidents. Police aren’t allowed to carelessly run stop signs or blow through traffic signals or travel at excessive speeds.

If the government worker was responding to a genuine emergency (usually indicated with lights and sirens), the standard of proof is higher. Plaintiff will have to show the worker (in this case police officer) displayed willful and wanton disregard for the well-being of others.

In the case involving Officer Gowans, the court did hear evidence Gowans had activated his lights and sirens. However, due to heavy traffic volumes, plaintiff’s son couldn’t see him until it was too late to stop.

Central to the case was the fact that prior to Gowans entering the section, dispatch sent out notice that another officer was already on scene. That meant that there was no need for him to have his lights and sirens still on when he entered the intersection.

Plaintiff did not have insurance, and racked up a hospital bill of more than $80,000. The hospital administrators did reduce that bill, but it was still far in excess of what she could afford.

After weighing all the evidence, jurors determined the officer was negligent and further that he was 90 percent to blame for the crash. Plaintiff’s damages were more than $30,000 for previous medical bills, $7,000 for bills to be paid in the future and $300,000 for pain and suffering.

The officer is still with the department. Coincidentally, he was also the subject of a lawsuit that was settled four years ago by a defendant who alleged he was wrongly arrested for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. While surveillance video at the home indicated the man was cooperative, Gowans had reported otherwise. Defendant in that case was awarded $30,000.

In this case, the only opportunity plaintiff will have to obtain the full amount of the award would be to petition a politician to introduce and pass a claims bill. Prior experience has shown this can take many years.

At this point, plaintiff attorneys have stated, they are hoping the city does not appeal the decision.

“Our hope is that after years of fighting this, they choose to honor the jury’s verdict,” the Sun-Sentinel quoted the lawyer as saying.

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

Additional Resources:

Woman wins $306,000 judgement against Fort Lauderdale for crash with cruiser, Feb. 3, 2016, By Rafael Olmeda, The Sun Sentinel

More Blog Entries:

Wrong-Way Accidents in Broward, Miami-Dade Target for Safety Advocates, Jan. 25, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Blog

Now, given the precedent set by a recent settlement agreement in Minnesota, there may be another alternative for victims of drugged drivers: Action against the doctor or clinic where the driver received prescription medications.

Given the fact that Florida was not long ago labeled the “Oxy Express” and that abuse of prescription painkillers led to an epidemic of opioid addiction and overdose, it’s likely we might see similar cases crop up here.more

As media outlets reported late last month, the legal action was triggered by a fatal car crash in 2012 that involved one of the defendants’ patients. The woman had reportedly driven 100 miles from home to the clinic and received a prescription for take-home methadone (a powerful drug given for severe pain or to wean heroin addicts). She then stopped at a gas station and injected the medication before continuing on her drive. But she didn’t get far before she reportedly crossed the center line and crashed into a pickup with two workers inside. That vehicle was then forced into the path of an oncoming semi-truck. The two workers were killed.

Their families then filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the clinic, later adding the doctor as a defendant. Prior to that, the state board of medicine had reprimanded the doctor, concluding he was prescribing excessive quantities of controlled substances while failing to assess the risks to patients. He was also reprimanded for prescribing an opioid addiction drug to three times as many patients as he was allowed under federal guidelines. He was banned for one year from dispensing methadone or other controlled substances.

The driver, 28-year-old Vanessa Brigan, was convicted of two counts of criminal vehicular homicide and sentenced to six years in prison.

In the civil lawsuit, families received permission to seek punitive damages against the clinic and the case was set for trial when a settlement was reached.

That settlement included:

• $5.7 million clinic liability
• $2.5 million doctor liability

Of that total, 75 percent will go to the family of the worker who left behind a wife and children.

These amounts will be paid for by defendants’ respective insurance carriers.

As part of the agreement, both the doctor and the clinic concede to a judgment classifying them as negligent.

Although fewer people are dying of prescription pain medication overdoses in Florida than in years past, it’s still a serious problem. A recent study by the American Journal of Public Health revealed that after a series of state laws were passed that aimed to address the problem, the number of drug-related deaths and arrests fell.

Still, some researchers have called the effect “modest,” with the state reporting a 1.4 percent decline in the number of opioid prescriptions dispensed from 2010 to 2012.

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

Additional Resources:

Families get over $8M in precedent-setting case against methadone clinic, Jan. 26, 2016, By Ramona Marozas, NNCNOW.com

More Blog Entries:

Wrong-Way Accidents in Broward, Miami-Dade Target for Safety Advocates, Jan. 25, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Accident Attorney Blog