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

An analysis released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reveals Jan. 1st is the single deadliest day of the year when it comes to alcohol-related crashes involving motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. The IIHS late last year looked at the most recent five years of deadly crash information, and discovered that on that day, an average of 70 people were killed in collisions where at least one driver, pedestrian or cyclist had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher. In fact, 62 percent of all deadly crashes in the U.S. on that day were attributed to impairment by alcohol, which is almost double the overall rate of 35 percent.

In just looking at occupants of motor vehicles (excluding large trucks), an average of 83 people were killed in car accidents on New Year’s Day over that five-year time frame, compared to an average of 59 on any other given day.

It especially doesn’t bode well this year that overall traffic deaths have spiked, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports the number of alcohol-impaired driving crashes in rose nearly 2 percent between 2015 and 2016. Nearly 10,500 people died in drunk driving accidents last year.

Although Christmas Eve and Christmas Day are slightly less dangerous, as most people are spending time at home with their families, it can’t be overlooked that DUI-related traffic stops spike by more than 30 percent on these days too.

When the NHTSA looked at the total economic cost of all traffic crashes, it was estimated to be approximately $242 billion. Of that, $44 billion is directly traced to drunk drivers. These losses include medical costs, emergency medical services, insurance administration, lost wages, lost productivity, traffic congestion and legal and court expenses.

The most dangerous time on New Year’s is the 12-hour window between 6 p.m. on December 31st and 6 a.m. on January 1st.

Although our Fort Lauderdale drunk driving injury lawyers know these occurrences are often referred to as “accidents,” the reality is they result from the conscious choices of irresponsible motorists. That’s not to say they intend to cause harm, but they fail to use reasonable care, which is a duty owed by anyone behind the wheel.

In terms of compensating victims of drunk driving for their losses, there may be several possible avenues. The first involves personal injury protection, or PIP, which is required by every driver with a registered vehicle in Florida. This is no-fault insurance coverage that will cover you – and your vehicle occupants and possibly any pedestrian or bicyclist involved – for up to $10,000 in medical expenses and lost wages. However, many drunk driving injuries are far more serious, and additional compensation is required.

The next step is to pursue action with the at-fault driver, by filing a claim with their auto insurer. Many such claims are settled out-of-court, though it’s possible one or more fact disputes (usually involving how high your damages truly are) may need to be resolved through a trial.

Sometimes even if you are successful in this, that coverage won’t be enough. In that case, you can pursue action with your own uninsured/ underinsured motorist coverage carrier. Although this coverage isn’t required in Florida, it comes standard with most auto insurance policies.

It may also be possible to pursue a dram shop liability lawsuit against the bar or restaurant that served alcohol to the driver, though per the stipulations of F.S. 768.125, this is limited to instances where the impaired driver was either under 21 or was known by the establishment to be habitually addicted to alcohol.

Your injury lawyer should be able to give you a general idea of your legal options following a free initial consultation.

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

Additional Resources:

New Year’s Day is deadliest for alcohol-related crashes, Dec. 28, 2016, IIHS

More Blog Entries:

Legislators Fight to Overturn Florida’s No-Fault Car Insurance Law, Nov. 7, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources:

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

More Blog Entries:

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

The Orlando Sentinel reported the sad news after a year-long fight for his life that ended recently in a hospice facility in Central Florida. He was just 40-years-old. Friends and family told reporters Liddy loved the open road, whether it was driving his tractor-trailer or bicycling across the state – a hobby he had fervently dedicated himself to in recent years.

The truck accident that caused his injuries occurred last July. According to the Florida Highway Patrol, Liddy’s truck collided with another tractor-trailer on the Turnpike in St. Lucie County one morning shortly after 5 a.m. Investigators later told WPTV NBC-5 that the two trucks were traveling southbound with the other truck a short distance ahead of Liddy. For an undetermined reason, Liddy’s semi struck the rear trailer of the other vehicle. Liddy then struck a median guardrail and jackknifed.

The violent collision resulted in tomatoes barrels of tomatoes to be scattered all across the highway. Liddy, meanwhile, was left critically injured. He suffered a serious skull fracture and had to undergo numerous injuries. For months, he was in a medically-induced coma.

Still, his family and friends held out hope that he would improve. After all, he not only had a beloved wife and three children – ages 22, 9 and 15 months – he had built strong friendships with those in the Florida cycling community. Those cyclists rallied around him and his family for the full year, cooking meals, doing yard work and organizing numerous fundraisers, including a 100-mile ride in his honor.

He transferred medical facilities a number of times, but there was hope of his improvement. He awoke. He could, with prompting, squeeze someone’s hand or raise his arms. He was even able to say a few words. He told his wife he loved her. He told her he missed her. He said her name.

But then, his condition started to decline. He suffered sky-high fevers and seizures. Then last month, he was transferred to a hospice unit. His cycling friends kept vigil by his side.

Now that he has passed, the family is no doubt reeling with what happens now.

Our Fort Lauderdale truck accident lawyers know that in terms of financial security, there may be several avenues worth exploring. Of course, health insurance may cover some of the costs and community fundraisers are welcome. But long-term, those aren’t going to make up for the wages Liddy would have earned to help support his family.

Because Liddy was on-the-job at the time of the crash, we would first want to explore whether workers’ compensation benefits might be available. These benefits generally cover medical bills and a portion of lost wages and survivor benefits when an injury or death happens at work – regardless of who is at-fault.

Beyond that, we would want to look closely at what caused this crash. Generally when one vehicle rear-ends another, there is a rebuttable presumption that the driver in the rear (in this case, Liddy), is at-fault. It would be necessary to see whether any evidence suggests he was not at-fault or that the other driver may have shared some of the blame. This would allow for a third-party civil action against the other driver and/or that driver’s employer and/or the owner of that truck.

Another element to examine is whether any mechanical issues may have played a role in the crash that might give rise to a product liability claim.

It can be difficult in the wake of such tragedy to think about finances, but it’s often critical to helping families form a steady foundation for the next chapter.

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

Additional Resources:

Central Florida cyclist Chris Liddy dies after yearlong battle with crash injury, June 2, 2016, By Bethany Rodgers, Orlando Sentinel

More Blog Entries:

Sorenson v. Batchelder – Injury Lawsuit Nixed Due to Misfiled Paperwork, May 29, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Truck Accident Lawyer Blog

According to The Sun-Sentinel, the Ed Morse Toyota Scion, which is part of the larger Ed Morse Automotive Group, offered condolences to the family of the decedent, a Canadian woman who was the rear passenger of the bike.

Police with the Delray Beach department allege that a mechanic for the auto dealership was speeding along Dixie Highway when he reportedly lost control of the vehicle, a 2002 Lexus sedan. He was reportedly test-driving the vehicle.

A press release sent out by authorities indicate witnesses told investigators that the Lexus driver was traveling at a “very high rate of speed.” It was about 3:30 p.m., and traffic was heavier than usual. The driver reportedly had a close call with another car and swerved to avoid impact. That’s when he collided with the motorcycle, a Honda Goldwing.

Both the male driver and the female passenger were transported to the local hospital as trauma alerts. Both suffered critical injuries, and the woman was soon after pronounced dead.

As of this writing, authorities haven’t released the identities of those involved, except to say that the pair on the motorcycle were visiting from Canada.

The dealership issued a statement saying it extends sympathy and prayers to those involved in the crash. The statement stopped short, however, of an apology or conceding any wrongdoing by the company or the employee.

That was to be expected, though it does not mean the company won’t be held responsible through vicarious liability. That means even if the dealership itself didn’t do anything wrong, it can be made responsible to pay for damages caused by the negligence of its employee. The idea stems from the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, Latin for “let the master answer.” So if the worker is engaged in an activity that furthers the goal of the employer, the employer can be held responsible because it exercises a degree of control over the actions of the employee.

What is not totally clear at this point in the Delray Beach car accident is whether the mechanic was on-the-job at the time of the crash. If he was test-driving the vehicle for purposes of buying one for his own personal use, it is possible the courts may not agree with an allegation of vicarious liability by the employer because he would have been acting in his capacity as an individual, as opposed to an employee. However, if he was “test-driving” the vehicle in the course and scope of his employment (i.e., to test whether certain features were working properly), then absolutely, the legal theory of vicarious liability would be applicable.

Also in this situation, the employer – as the owner of the vehicle – might be found vicariously liable on that fact alone because motor vehicles in Florida are considered dangerous instrumentalities. This assertion would likely apply regardless of whether the employee was working at the time of the crash, so long as he had the dealership’s permission to operate the vehicle.

Additionally, the employer could be found directly negligent with assertions of:

• Negligent hiring or retention;
• Negligent supervision;
• Negligent entrustment.

It’s important to explore these options too because vicarious liability is capped per F.S. 324.021.

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

Additional Resources:

Canadian woman killed after mechanic on test drive collides with motorcycle; dealership expresses condolences, April 7, 2016, By Kate Jacobson, Sun-Sentinel

More Blog Entries:

De La Torre v. Gallardo – Florida Dram Shop Law, April 5, 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

The 40-year-old movie star was a front seat passenger in a rare 2005 Porsche Carrera GT, driven by professional racer friend Roger Rodas. The vehicle struck a lamppost and tree in suburban Los Angeles. The vehicle burst into flames shortly after impact, and Rodas and Walker, 40, were burned beyond recognition.

Although investigators with the county and state deduced that high speeds were likely the core cause of the crash, the lawsuit filed by Walker’s father asserts the vehicle lacked important safety features found not just on other high-end racing cars, but on the company’s basic models.

It was well-established even after the crash that this vehicle is different than most you will find on the road. For starters, it reaches a top speed of more than 208 mph. As the editor-in-chief at Car and Driver magazine once pointed out, the car was created specifically for racing, and it’s, “Not a car for novices.”

It is not an easy vehicle to drive, and there have been some who have commented this was by design. In fact, it is a key point of contention in pending litigation. Specifically, the vehicle is unusual because it lacks a feature known as electronic stability control. When it comes to mistakes, experts say, the vehicle is “unforgiving.” A vehicle that is equipped with electronic stability control can help correct slides or keep the driver from losing control. This vehicle changes directions very quickly and the throttle can allow for hyper-fast acceleration. Pro-racers describe the vehicle as “tricky.”

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) passed a measure that requires electronic stability control to be phased into standard equipment on all passenger vehicles under 10,000 pounds by no later than 2012 models. The car Walker was in was a 2005 model.

Walker’s father asserts the company’s failure to install this system meant that drivers and passengers were vulnerable to swerving actions in vehicles that were already hypersensitive. Further, plaintiff alleges the side-door reinforcements were weak, and the design of the seat belt was defective. Plaintiff asserts that the collective effect of these designs was that when the vehicle made impact, Walker’s torso was snapped backward with thousands of pounds of force. His pelvis and ribs were broken. He was trapped in a horizontal position, alive, until the vehicle caught fire about 90 seconds later.

The lawsuit also asserts the fire was preventable had the car manufacturer installed a breakaway fuel line that would have shut down the flow of fuel automatically.

Porsche, however, has countered that Walker’s death was caused by his own comparative fault. The celebrity was a knowledgeable passenger, well aware of the risks associated with driving this particular vehicle. Walker, who owned the car, altered it significantly, according to the manufacturer. The $450,000 vehicle was allegedly running with 9-year-old tires, Porsch alleges. This improper maintenance and reckless operation of the vehicle, the company opines, was the cause of the two deaths.

Both California, where this case was filed, and Florida, adhere to a pure comparative fault model, which allows plaintiff’s share of fault to reduce or offset defendant’s liability. However, a plaintiff’s own negligence will not bar the claim entirely. In fact, plaintiff who is majority at fault in a pure comparative fault model system can still collect damages from a defendant who shares at least some of the blame.

Although there aren’t likely to be many lawsuits involving this particular model – there are only 1,300 of them in existence – there are many vehicles that are not properly designed, and this can play a critical role in crash causation or failure to mitigate injuries. If you are injured in a serious traffic accident in Fort Lauderdale, call our attorneys to learn more about how we can help. This particular type of action, against the manufacturer of a product, is known as product liability, and it’s an aspect of any crash case that should be explored.

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

Additional Resources:

Porsche is Blaming Paul Walker for His Fatal Car Accident, Nov. 17, 2015, By Megan Friedman, Esquire.com

More Blog Entries:

Joerg v. State Farm – Florida Supreme Court Rules on Collateral Source Benefit Evidence, Dec. 2, 2015, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog