As Fort Lauderdale accident attorneys, we generally advice against this. The problem is that information on social media accounts – particularly anything that relates to your accident, injury or recovery – could undercut your personal injury claim. Such posts can provide defense lawyers with a valuable source of information that refute the cause of your injury, impeach your credibility or poke holes in the amount of damages you claim to have suffered.

This isn’t to say that people posting about their case are lying about anything. In fact, it’s more likely that they post because they feel they have nothing to hide. The problem is you aren’t looking at the information through the same lens as a lawyer. The intent and implications of certain pictures, posts, videos or comments could be twisted by the defense team. It’s better to limit your social media engagement while your case is pending, if possible. If you have questions about specifics, direct them to your accident attorney.

There are a few general guidelines for social media from which virtually any personal injury client can benefit:

• DON’T post pictures or talk about the accident. The pictures and words you share about the accident, your injuries or how it’s impacted your life could potentially cost you a lot in court. That doesn’t mean you have to take down your social media accounts or forego posting anything altogether, but do be cautious. With every post, ask yourself whether you’d be comfortable with it being shown or read aloud in court.
• DO change your privacy settings. Whether your case is to be settled in negotiations with insurers or settled in court, it’s a good idea to block strangers from having access to your social media pages. Updating your privacy settings to ensure your pages are restricted and not public is one way to help prevent the content therein from becoming fodder in your personal injury case. That said, always presume that everything you post could potentially become subject to scrutiny.
• DON’T post online about your hospital stay. It’s understandable that you want to keep friends and family informed, but it’s best to do so privately so you can sidestep any possible issues with your claim. Your medical bills will be the subject of scrutiny in a personal injury claim, and you want to make sure you are compensated for the full amount. You don’t want to unintentionally say something that could compromise that. Plus, the majority of people on your friend list probably don’t need to know the details of your care.
• DO a quick Google search of yourself. Open a window in Incognito mode to see what information about you is public. If you think anything that pops up could be a potential issue, discuss these with your Fort Lauderdale injury lawyer.
• DO talk to a counselor or therapist. There is a lot at stake in your personal injury lawsuit. You could have thousands, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line. Using your social media page as a support group isn’t smart when the things you say could come back to haunt you in court. Discuss questions and concerns with your attorney. Work through the emotional trauma with a counselor or therapist who will keep your conversations confidential. (Further, the cost of these sessions could be recoverable in your claim as well if the mental/emotional turmoil your experiencing is directly related to the accident.)

Expect that defense lawyers will be looking for any evidence that could undermine your claim, and proceed with caution when it comes to your online presence.

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

More Blog Entries:

Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyers on Handling Crashes With Uninsured Drivers, Feb. 1, 2021, Fort Lauderdale Accident Attorney Blog

Now, emboldened by a business-friendly legislature, governor and state supreme court, Florida lawmakers are proposing a series of new tort reform measures that would once again make it more difficult for injured plaintiffs to recover sufficient damages inflicted by negligence. The first is HB 17 Tort Reform and the second is SB 1320 Damages Recoverable for Health Care Costs in Florida personal injury and wrongful death claims.

Florida Tort Reform Bill Would Protect Insurance Companiesmore

Let’s start with HB 17. The measure is specific to products liability lawsuits, and would in effect:

• Render the seller not liable for “unreasonable misuse of the product.” Currently, any entity in the chain of distribution can be found liable for injuries caused by “foreseeable misuse,” meaning the misuse was one that could be reasonably foreseen by the manufacturer and/or seller.
• Reduction of damages for any misuse of products resulting in injury. Currently there is no such reduction for foreseeable misuse of a product.
• Outlines guidelines for ascertaining whether a product that’s been misused can be deemed defective.
• Provides an accounting of damages for product liability lawsuits.
• Allows certain business contracts to be concealed/not subject to discovery/disclosure in personal injury lawsuits.
• Caps non-economic damages for pain and suffering in personal injury litigation.
• Requires that jurors deciding these cases be kept in the dark about these provisions.

In support of the measure, proponent lawmakers paraded a series of witnesses to testify before a House committee. One of those was a defense attorney for a popular southern grocery store chain who reported it is 65 percent more costly to settle a personal injury lawsuit in Florida than in any other state where the store operates. One proponent of the measure in House (not coincidentally also a defense attorney for insurance companies) referred to the state as a “judicial hellhole,” as described by the American Tort Reform Association.

It’s worth pointing out that when the state supreme court struck down medical malpractice damage caps, justices then accused lawmakers of “manufacturing a medical malpractice crisis” by asserting the number of physicians in Florida was rapidly decreasing amid rising medical malpractice claims. In fact, doctors in the state at the time were increasing – and that trend has continued.

This tort reform bill seeks to reinstate the $1 million damage caps on pain and suffering, something juries currently decide.

This latest push is likely to gain productive steam now that the Florida Supreme Court now has no justices appointed by Democratic governors, following Gov. Ron DeSantis’ appointment of three new members earlier this year. Republicans have been primarily the ones appointing judges for the last two decades.

Meanwhile, SB 1320 would require plaintiffs in personal injury or wrongful death attorney seeking to recover for health care costs to produce evidence of “the usual and customer rates for health care services, procedures or equipment.”

Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Lawyers Deny State is “Judicial Hellhole”

As a longtime Fort Lauderdale personal injury lawyer, Richard Ansara says it’s important that voters know the “judicial hellhole” argument is exceedingly week. Damage caps do not – and are not – harming Florida’s economy. The economy is doing well.

This push represents the latest effort to subvert victims’ rights and give large corporations an unnecessary “get-out-of-jail-free” card.

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

Additional Resources:

New Supreme Court emboldening Florida lawmakers to push tort reform, March 6, 2019, By Zac Anderson, Gatehouse News Service

More Blog Entries:

Excessive Dose Medical Malpractice Alleged in Hospital Wrongful Death Claims, Feb. 26, 2019, Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Actual knowledge would be if the property owner/ controller created the mess or was directly informed of it. Constructive knowledge can be established with circumstantial evidence that shows the slippery condition had either lasted for a long enough time the property owner should have discovered it in the course of using ordinary care OR that it occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.

This can be challenging, which is why the injury attorney you choose should be highly skilled and experienced with a track record of success in these cases in the last eight years since the law changed.

Recently in Miami, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment in favor of retail giant Costco in a lawsuit alleging slip-and-fall injury in front of one of its stores. The case failed for plaintiff on the issue of knowledge.

According to court records, plaintiff went to the store at the request of her neighbor, who was a member. Plaintiff had never been to the site before. When she got there, her neighbor went to get a card while plaintiff began walking toward the entrance. As she was walking, plaintiff felt her right leg move out from underneath her and she fell directly onto her right knee. She screamed out in pain and a small crowd gathered round. A Costco employee assisted her until an ambulance arrived. She suffered a broken kneecap and later sued the store for liability.

However, Costco moved for summary judgment because there wasn’t any genuine issue of material fact about the company’s actual or constructive knowledge of the slippery substance on the floor. Trial Court agreed. The 3rd DCA affirmed on appeal.

Plaintiff argued the trial court erred by entering an order without elaborating on it and by granting the store’s request for summary judgment based solely on her own testimony.

As to the unelaborated order, the appellate court stated that while it may be preferable for a trial judge to specify the reasons for granting or denying a summary judgement, there is no rule or prior decision requiring they do so. As to the second issue, the court found there was no genuine issue of material fact about on one or more of the elements of negligence (i.e., a duty of care owed, a breach of duty, a causal connection between breach and injury and resulting damages.

Normally, the duties of a business to invitees is to take ordinary and reasonable care to keep the property reasonably safe for invitees and secondly to warn of dangers that were known or should have been known to the owner of which the invitee could not discovered. The 2010 slip-and-fall statute modifies the duty of a business when an invitee is injured by slipping in a transitory foreign substance. The clear intent of it was to shift the burden of proof in constructive knowledge negligence actions fully onto the plaintiff. In other words, the mere presence of water on the floor isn’t enough to establish constructive notice.

In this case, there was reportedly no dispute about the store’s actual or constructive notice about the liquid. Plaintiff stated she did not see any store employees around the liquid or by the entrance before or when she fell. It was not raining, the slip happened under an overhang in front of the entrance. She didn’t see the liquid on the floor before she fell and didn’t know what it was other than that it was wet. She had no idea how long it had been there and she saw no evidence someone had slipped in the same place prior to her fall. The appellate court ruled that absent any additional facts suggesting the liquid was there for an extended period of time or that this happened routinely, trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant.

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

Additional Resources:

LAGO V. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., Dec. 13, 2017, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal

More Blog Entries:

Court Affirms Dog Bite Injury Verdict Against Dog and Property Owners, May 20, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Slip-and-Fall Attorney Blog

These large ships are like floating cities with thousands of people and all kinds of activities for adults and children. While they can be a lot of fun, there can also be accidents, just like you would have at a land-based amusement part or other attraction.While some of these accidents are simply accidents, others are the result of negligence on behalf of the ship owners and operators. These accidents can lead to a personal injury lawsuit, but jurisdiction can be a real issue. There is obviously no court in the middle of the ocean, but you have to file the case somewhere.

As our Fort Lauderdale personal injury lawyers can explain, when issues of admiralty and maritime law come into play, things can be rather confusing, but you can generally find jurisdiction in the federal court nearest to the port of departure. This means you will be in a Florida federal court. However, there are other issues that you should discuss with your attorney, like a notice requirement, that are often present. In many cases, your attorney will have to give the common carrier (cruise ship company) notice in 185 days or less of your intent to file a claim, so the sooner you contact an attorney the better.

The accidents that can happen on a cruise ship can really be anything, such as slip-and-fall. According to a recent news article from Florida Record, a family had just filed a personal injury lawsuit following an accident where their son allegedly was injured by a door while on a cruise ship and suffered a serious personal injury. In the family’s complaint, it states that the child was injured when a door slammed shut on his finger. This resulted in serious personal injury per the complaint, and the alleged negligence was that cruise ship operator failed to maintain the doorway, failed to properly mark the doorway for safety, and failed to warn of a known danger.

An injury such as this would generally be considered a premises liability action. There is a requirement that property owners, including ship owners, maintain the property in such a way as to prevent foreseeable injury to foreseeable persons and property. One of the primary issues in a case like this is whether defendant knew or should have known such a danger existed and whether that danger would be obvious to prospective victims. One way to determine that will be to ask, during the discovery process, for records of any other similar accidents on that boat or any others. If the same or similar thing happened and a defendant had actual knowledge, that would be good evidence to use of actual knowledge in such a case.

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

Additional Resources:

Minor child allegedly injured on Disney Cruise Line trip by door, May 16, 2017, By Jenie-Mallari-Torres, Florida Record

More Blog Entries:

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

In cases where businesses do not take reasonable steps to prevent injury, businesses may be liable for damages to victims.

One such case was recently seen in California, where an appellate court affirmed a $5.42 million damage award to a woman who was sexually assaulted in a dance club unisex bathroom.

The case is Janice H. v. 696 North Robertson LLC, recently weighed by the California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District, Division Three. Plaintiff accused the club of negligent security, negligent hiring and retention and negligent supervision.

According to court records, the club in question was one that promoted a sexually-charged atmosphere. Bartenders were encouraged to work in their underwear. The establishment frequently held sex-themed nights. On the one in question, the theme was “size matters.” It was a very popular and busy spot, with some 500 people at the site on Sunday nights.

The club had numerous unisex restrooms, which one or two guards were assigned to patrol to ensure no more than one patron entered at a time. The club’s policy dictated that the guards were supposed to maintain their posts by the restroom unless the club was very slow. This was a busy night.

Plaintiff was at a different club with friends when she became separated from them. Knowing that she was supposed to be meeting up with friends at defendant club, she left and headed over. When she got there, she felt intoxicated and sat out on the patio for 15 to 25 minutes, waiting for her friends.

She then made her way over to one of the unisex restroom stalls. When she did so, no security guard was present. Soon after entering, a man she did not know entered behind her. He grabbed her shoulders, threw her up against a wall, forced her to engage in oral copulation and then in vaginal intercourse. Plaintiff was a virgin at the time. Blood was all over the bathroom floor.

After five minutes, plaintiff, bleeding and shaking, exited the club and sought police assistance.

DNA evidence and surveillance video traced the perpetrator to a worker who was assigned to bus tables at the club.

He was later acquitted of the criminal assault, but plaintiff sued for negligence both him and the club. The civil court agreed to exclude evidence of the acquittal and it did not exclude evidence that showed both defendant bus worker and his brother had been fired at a previous nightclub job for having sex in the bathroom.

Plaintiff requested $7,000 in economic damages and between $7 million to $11 million in non-economic damages.

Jurors returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and found she was not comparatively negligent. It awarded her $5.42 million in damages, which included $70,000 in past economic damages, $1.25 million in past non-economic damages and $4.1 million in future non-economic damages. Jurors assigned 40 percent responsibility to the nightclub and 60 percent to the assailant.

The nightclub appealed, arguing there had been insufficient evidence to prove plaintiff’s case or that alternatively, the damage award was excessive and punitive, given plaintiff’s emotional resilience and significant recovery.

Court of appeals affirmed the damage award, finding there was sufficient evidence for plaintiff’s assertions and the jurors’ verdict was not unreasonable. Although it was unusual that the damage award for future non-economic damages more than tripled the amount for economic damages, the court could not say that it was excessive or unreasonable.

Her attorney was quoted by The L.A. Times as saying the club and its security had “turned a blind eye” to sexual activity in its restrooms, and plaintiff was severely injured as a result.

Our Hollywood nightclub injury attorneys know that such attacks are both foreseeable and preventable and owners of nightclubs have a responsibility in those situations to do all they can to protect patrons.

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

Additional Resources:

Janice H. v. 696 North Robertson LLC, July 14, 2015, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three

More Blog Entries:

Stept v. Met Hotel LLC – Woman Sues Hotel for Carjacking Injury in Miami, July 17, 2016, Florida Nightclub Injury Lawyer Blog

However, as the recent case of Grimes v. Family Dollar Stores of Florida reveals, when those landscaped areas have well-worn pedestrian tracks indicating it is regularly used as a shortcut, the potentially for liability is increased.

That’s according to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal. The court conceded there were a number of prior cases (on which defendants relied) that established property owners/ controllers aren’t responsible when pedestrians/ shoppers take a shortcut through landscaped features that aren’t designed for or used by pedestrians. (Specifically, the court relied on Wolf v. Sam’s East, Inc.)more

In Wolf, plaintiff tripped over a tree root as he took a short cut through a parking lot landscaped feature. The court ruled that when a person walks into a landscaping area that contains trees, grass, mulch and other features that make it clear that area isn’t supposed to be used for walking, pedestrians assume the risk in doing so – especially when there are concrete walkways that are available for their use.

But Wolf wasn’t applicable here, the 3rd DCA ruled.

According to court records in the trip-and-fall lawsuit of Grimes, plaintiff was making her way through a parking lot to a store located in a shopping plaza. She walked across one of the landscaped areas directly across from the store. This area was well-worn from use by other walkers. While crossing this feature, she tripped over a piece of re-bar that was sticking out of the ground. As a result of her fall, she suffered injuries to her knee.

She later sued the store (commercial tenant), property owner and the landscaping company that was responsible for maintenance.

Defendants responded with the ruling established in Wolf. Trial court granted defense motion for summary judgment on these grounds.

On appeal, the 3rd DCA reversed with regard to the property owner and landscaping company. (As far as the commercial tenant, the court ruled that company didn’t have any control over the landscaped area in a parking lot shared by several other commercial tenants.)

Generally, property owners have a duty to business invitees to:

• Keep the property in reasonably safe condition;
• To warn of latent or concealed dangers about which the property owners knows or should have discovered through the exercise of due care (and which are not known or obvious to the invitee).

The court wrote that if the parties responsible for parking lot maintenance may have had a duty to anticipate harm in that footpath because, as the well-worn area suggests, people had been using it as a walkway for some time.

What’s more, the hazard in this case was not a natural one (i.e., a tree root), but rather a not-so-obvious, man-made length of re-bar sticking just a few inches off the ground.

The court did not make a decision on whether the defendants were negligent, but rather determined there were triable issues of material fact for which they could be found liable, and the case should proceed to trial in order for those facts to be established.

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

Additional Resources:

Grimes v. Family Dollar Stores of Florida, May 4, 2016, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal

More Blog Entries:

Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawsuit Filed After Bounce House Blows Away From Beach, May 10, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Trip and Fall Accident Lawyer Blog