As a longtime Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyer, I’ve sadly seen viable damage claims undermined because the person involved made some missteps early on. And it’s understandable – you’re traumatized, maybe disoriented, and possibly overwhelmed.

That’s why it’s always a good idea to contact a personal injury lawyer as soon as possible after a crash, particularly one that involves serious injuries. We’ll help walk you through every aspect and fight for you to receive full and fair compensation.

Note that while Florida is a no-fault state when it comes to car accidents, that does not mean you’ll only be dealing with your own insurance. If your injuries are serious and the other party was at-fault, there’s a good chance you’ll be able to step outside the no-fault system and file a claim against the at-fault driver’s insurer.

Top 4 “Don’ts” After a South Florida Car Accident

more

1. Don’t drive away. If you panic and leave the scene of an accident, you could be failing to collect key evidence for a future claim. Not only that, it could be a serious crime. F.S. 316.027 makes leaving the scene of a crash involving death or injuries a third-degree felony (at minimum), which carries a 5-year prison sentence. Now this provision is geared toward the at-fault driver in a crash, but the statute does not specify that – in large part because it may be impossible for the parties on scene to ascertain “fault” in the immediate aftermath. Therefore everyone needs to stay on scene. Leaving could substantially undermine if not eliminate your chances at filing a claim, it could open you to criminal consequences.
2. Don’t discuss the crash with others involved. Don’t talk about the crash on the scene with anyone except law enforcement. Statements you make to police after a crash are likely privileged, meaning they can’t be used against you later. (That doesn’t apply to all statements, nor factual findings by the officer.) However, if you talk to someone else about what happened, that person could testify against you. This includes statements like, “I’m so sorry,” or “I just didn’t see you.” It’s a natural inclination of many to apologize to another if they see they are hurt, even if they aren’t the one responsible for that pain. But in the context of a crash, such statements could be used against you later if you try to pursue a claim for damages.
3. Don’t forget to collect information. You may be reeling in the aftermath of a crash, but if you’re able, don’t forget to collect basics from the other driver. These include: Name, address, cell phone number, driver’s license number, license plate number, the name of their auto insurance company and their auto insurance policy numbers. You’re going to need this information for your own insurance company, even if all you do is file a no-fault claim for personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. It’s also a good idea to take some pictures and/or video and get contact information from any witnesses or bystanders.
4. Don’t underestimate how badly you’re hurt. In the aftermath of a crash, you may be running on adrenaline, and therefore “feel fine.” But you could be more seriously hurt than you realize. This is especially true of head injuries and soft tissue injuries. Even if you think you’re Ok, it’s a good idea to get checked out by a doctor as soon as possible afterward just to be sure. The longer you wait between the time of the crash and seeing a medical provider, the lower your chances of proving your injuries were connected to the crash.

DO contact an experienced Broward injury lawyer as soon as possible after a crash, particularly if you’ve suffered serious injuries. The Florida statute of limitation for filing such claims was recently shortened by lawmakers, so it’s important to act as quickly as possible. Even if you aren’t sure whether you have a claim, we can help you determine if you do and what your next steps should be.

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

Additional Resources:

Crash and Citation Reports & Statistics, Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

More Blog Entries:

Why Broward Car Accident Lawyers Are Reluctant to Represent Both a Driver & Passenger, Jan. 8, 2024, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources:

F.S. 768.81, Florida Comparative Fault Statute

More Blog Entries:

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

Lots of us were raised to apologize anytime we think someone has been hurt or inconvenienced, even if we didn’t directly cause their pain. And it’s one thing to say you’re sorry if you accidentally bump into someone in the grocery store or step on their toe in a movie theater aisle. But offering a mea culpa following a Fort Lauderdale car accident can cause you problems down the road when it comes to determining legal responsibility for the crash.

To be clear, whatever spontaneous utterances you make at the scene of the crash won’t be the last word in the case. Liability (or fault) is going to be based on the totality of the evidence. But an apology from one of the drivers involved can be used as a piece of evidence.

Florida’s a No-Fault State, But Fault Still Matters

Despite efforts in the most recent legislative session, Florida remains a no-fault state when it comes to car insurance. What that means is that vehicle owners are required to carry personal injury protection (PIP) insurance that will cover up to $10,000 in damages, regardless of who is at-fault. However, $10,000 only goes so far in a serious crash.

If your injuries meet the criteria as outlined in F.S. 627.737, you can step outside that no-fault system and pursue damages against the at-fault driver(s). But fault will be a key element in your ability to collect. You have to prove the other driver was negligent in causing the crash or exacerbating your injuries. That means establishing the other driver owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and the breach of duty resulted in your damages.

Florida is a pure comparative fault state, which means you can still collect damages even if you partially share some of that blame. However, the amount of financial damages to which you are entitled will be reduced proportional to your fault. So if you are 20 percent liable and the other driver was 80 percent, you are only entitled to collect 80 percent of your total damages from that driver. You want to be able to collect 100 percent of your damages. Telling the other driver “sorry” at the scene of the accident (or at any point thereafter) is evidence that can be used against you to establish that you bore at least some responsibility for what happened. That can proportionately reduce the amount of damages that you are entitled to receive.

Refrain From All Apologies

Even if what you meant by, “I’m sorry” was, “sorry that you’re hurt” or, “sorry you’re upset” or, “sorry this happened,” it can easily be interpreted as, “I’m sorry for causing you this pain/inconvenience/etc.”

Bear in mind that insurers are in the business of protecting their bottom line. They will not be bothered by using your well-intentioned niceties against you if it means they can pay out less.

If at all possible after a crash, avoid apologizing. Instead, if you’re able, simply ask the other motorists/passengers if they are injured, and then do whatever you can to ensure help is on the way. This is the best way to demonstrate your care and concern for their welfare, while also side-stepping having your well-meaning words misconstrued.

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

Additional Resources:

Florida Insurance Requirements, FLHSMV

First, it’s important to explain Florida’s no-fault system of auto insurance coverage and the minimum coverage rates.

The minimum coverage for an auto accident is $10,000 in personal injury protection (PIP) coverage and $10,000 for property damage liability. PIP is the coverage you buy for yourself, per F.S. 627.736, and ensures a portion of coverage for medical bills and lost wages stemming from a crash. This is paid to you (and/or your passengers) regardless of who was at-fault (assuming you didn’t crash intentionally and weren’t committing a felony at the time of the accident). Your passengers may tap into their own PIP, even if they weren’t driving. You may not be entitled to the full $10,000 in PIP if your injuries did not require immediate treatment.more

If your losses exceed that $10,000 or if your injuries meet the “serious injury threshold,” as outlined in F.S. 627.737, you can step outside of the state’s no-fault system and file a liability claim or personal injury lawsuit against the at-fault driver. You will be required to show that the driver was negligent in causing the crash and your injuries, and may need to counter claims of your own fault. (Shared fault won’t strip you of the opportunity to collect damages, but it may reduce the overall amount you can collect.)

Here’s the thing: Florida does not require people to purchase bodily injury liability insurance, which is what would cover others if you cause a crash that results in injury. (There are exceptions if the person has a previous DUI or is operating a taxi or commercial vehicle.) If the driver has uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage, then they will also have bodily injury liability coverage that will be at least that much. UM/UIM, which provides excess coverage in case an at-fault driver doesn’t have insurance or enough insurance to cover your damages, is not required in Florida, but highly recommended. So if you have your own UM/UIM policy, you’ll at least be covered up to that amount if the other driver can’t pay. But if the at-fault driver does have liability coverage, you’ll be obligated to pursue that first.

But let’s say that your injuries exceed the policy limits of any of these. As our Fort Lauderdale injury lawyers can explain, insurers aren’t likely to pay an amount that exceeds the designated policy limit. It may be possible to hold the at-fault driver personally liable for your damages and compel them to pay out-of-pocket. Whether this is a worthwhile pursuit will depend on whether the defendant personally has the assets and means to cover your losses.

Although Florida does not require drivers to carry bodily injury liability coverage, there is a Florida Financial Responsibility law that requires an at-fault driver to provide financial coverage of at least $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident. If the “responsibility” is unmet, one can lose their driving privileges and a court could render a judgment against the to dock their pay, etc.

If your injuries exceed the amount of PIP, bodily injury liability and UM/UIM coverage available, there may be a few options for you to discuss with your lawyer. These include:

• Damages from multiple parties. This is sometimes an option in cases involving a commercial vehicle or Uber driver. It may also apply in cases where there were multiple drivers/vehicles involved or if the driver was drunk (Florida’s dram shop law offers a few options for relief under certain circumstances).
• Damages directly from the at-fault driver. The trouble with this option is many drivers who aren’t adequately insured also can’t afford to pay for damages. But it is an option worth looking into. Damages from the vehicle owner. Florida considers motor vehicles to be dangerous instrumentalities. That means the car owner can be deemed vicariously liable for damages, even if they weren’t driving or otherwise negligent.
• Umbrella policy. Umbrella insurance covers all damages in excess of what is provided by the primary auto insurance policy. So for instance, if you have $50,000 in damages and the driver has only $25,000 in bodily injury liability coverage, the umbrella insurance policy would pick up the remaining balance. (You could also collect from your own UM/UIM carrier.)
• Bad Faith insurance. If an insurance company denies a valid claim, refuses to negotiate a settlement or engages in a number of other bad faith business practices, you can take them to court for bad faith insurance and potentially win triple the value of your original claim. Such cases can be complex, and should only be taken on with the help of an experienced injury lawyer.

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

Additional Resources:

F.S. 627.736, Florida PIP Law

More Blog Entries:

Florida Boating Accidents Cause Lasting Damage, Dec. 1, 2020, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

For example, the Houston Chronicle reported that despite half as much road traffic, car accident deaths were only down about 20 percent this March compared to a year ago.

Some anecdotal observations are that while there are undoubtedly fewer vehicles on the road, some motorists are using this as an excuse to speed, blow through stop signs or fail to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Pedestrian accidents and bicycle accidents – which have always been a major problem in Florida – may even see an uptick as an increasing number of people are running and biking to maintain optimal cardiovascular fitness and also as an excuse to break the monotony of staying at home.

Just as in any other time, most accidents are caused by driver error or carelessness. There may be a feeling that traffic rules can be flouted because “nobody else is on the road,” so it doesn’t matter whether you make a full stop or look twice before making a left turn. The fact is, we should all assume we’re going to be sharing the road with others no matter how quiet the streets seem.

Many of the reported crashes in Houston are occurring during non-essential trips. Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez published a message on social media saying, “Just because there’s less traffic on the road, it does not mean the road rules have changed. Just because there are fewer cars on the road, it doesn’t mean you can treat it like a race track. It’s really disappointing because we need our medical facilities for sick people.”

Another thing drivers should bear in mind is that because the pandemic has caused many to become jobless and thus unable to pay essential bills, it seems likely many are allowing their car insurance to lapse – particularly when folks are doing a lot less driving. Floridians especially need to take this to heart, considering we already had one of the highest rates of uninsured motorists (26 percent, according to the Insurance Information Institute) even before the pandemic. What this means is not only should motorists be extra cautious, but it’s a good idea to revisit your uninsured/underinsured motorist policies. These are the policies that extend protection if you are involved with a hit-and-run driver, a driver who is not insured or a driver who lacks adequate insurance to cover their injuries. (It will also apply if you are a pedestrian or bicyclists struck by a motor vehicle.)

Reducing Florida Traffic Accident Risk During COVID19

If you must venture out right now, several things to keep in mind include:

• The importance of minimizing distractions. If you’re driving, don’t try to talk or text at the same time. Music or talk radio should be kept at reasonable volumes. Pay attention. This has always been important for motorists, but it’s a good reminder to maintain this even if you’re sharing the road with fewer vehicles.
• Watch for bicycles and pedestrians. Yes, there are fewer cars, but there are more bicyclists and pedestrians. Watch for them. Understand that bicycles are also considered vehicles, and share most of the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicle operators.
• Watch for children. Kids are not in school right now. They’ve been cooped up for weeks at least. They aren’t always inclined to be wary of their surroundings under any circumstances, but that may be especially true now. Parents may feel their attention pulled in many different directions, and may not be supervising outdoor play as closely. Just be on the lookout, particularly when driving in residential areas.
• Watch for delivery trucks. While there is less overall traffic these days, you may have noticed an uptick in the number of delivery trucks ferrying from place-to-place. More people are having essential (and non-essential) items delivered rather than shopping in-store. Delivery truck drivers may be on tight schedules, fatigued and possibly fairly new at their jobs. They can also cause a lot of damage in a crash. Give them a wide berth.

The bottom line here is that it’s important to do the right thing, even if you think no one else is around to be affected.

If you are involved in a crash, our Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers are still available via phone call and video conferencing to answer your questions.

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

Additional Resources:

With traffic so low, officials expected roadway deaths to follow suit. They did not. April 13, 2020, By Dug Begley, The Houston Chronicle

Perhaps just as scary is the fact that nearly 27 percent of Florida drivers have no insurance.

Even drivers who carry the minimum amount of insurance won’t have enough to cover your damages in the event of a serious crash. Although Florida law requires drivers to carry $10,000 in personal protection and $10,000 in property damage coverage, it doesn’t strictly require bodily injury coverage, which is paid to others hurt if you’re negligent in causing a crash. Drivers are required to be responsible for up to $20,000 in bodily injury coverage per crash ($10,000 per person), but having insurance to cover that amount isn’t strictly required.

What this means, as our Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers can explain, is that smart Florida drivers don’t waive or skimp on their uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. It one of the best and sometimes the only way you’ll get anything close to full compensation for your injuries after a crash.

Florida UM/UIM Coverage Explained

Uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage is insurance you carry to cover the risk that another driver will choose not to carry sufficient (or any) insurance. It will also cover you in crashes where you’re a passenger, pedestrian or bicyclist. It will also cover family members who live with you, and it follows you out-of-state if you’re traveling.

UM coverage is paid to those injured when someone is hurt in a crash caused by a driver who doesn’t have auto insurance or who isn’t identified because he/she fled the scene. UIM coverage provides compensation to those injured by drivers who don’t have enough bodily injury liability coverage or personal assets to cover the damages. Either can kick in when crash-related damages exceed the amount covered both in one’s personal injury protection (PIP) plan and what is covered by the negligent driver’s bodily injury liability coverage.

UM/UIM coverage can be used to pay:

• Medical expenses (past and future)
• Lost wages
• Pain and suffering
• Future loss of earning potential

Given that Florida has one of the highest accident rates in the country, plus the odds are more than 1 in 4 that the person with whom you collide won’t have any coverage at all, UM/UIM coverage is essential for anyone driving in Florida. This is true even though UM/UIM coverage isn’t mandatory in Florida. The option does come standard with auto insurance policies issued in the state, and individuals must sign a waiver to turn it down. UM/UIM must be equal to one’s bodily injury liability coverage.

Stacking UM/UIM Benefits

If you choose to purchase UM/UIM benefits, you might be able to take advantage of something known as “stacking.” This is when a policyholder stacks coverage based on the amount of vehicles covered in a policy.

For example, if you opt for $100,000 in UM/UIM benefits and have three vehicles on your policy and the policy allows stacking, then in fact you actually have $300,000 in UM/UIM coverage. The amount of coverage is multiplied by the number of vehicles covered under the policy.

Stacking is also allowed across multiple policies. So for example, let’s say you have two separate UM/UIM policies in your name that cover two separate vehicles. As long as both of those policies are in your name, you should be able to stack that coverage too (unless the policies expressly disallow it).

The trade-off of stacking is paying higher premiums. On the other hand, having coverage limits that are too low will mean you’ll be stuck with the bill for post-accident expenses that exceed your coverage limits.

Don’t assume that collecting UM/UIM benefits will be easy just because it’s your own insurer. Our Fort Lauderdale car accident attorneys can help.

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

Additional Resources:

Facts + Statistics: Uninsured motorists, Insurance Information Institute

More Blog Entries:

Filing a Florida Pedestrian Accident Lawsuit, Feb. 15, 2020, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Recently, bills were introduced by state lawmakers that would reform the no-fault auto insurance system in favor of a bodily injury coverage model. It’s not the first time lawmakers have tried. For three years running, similar bills have failed to gain enough traction.

It has been eight years since the most significant updates were made to F.S. 627.736, Florida’s PIP law, which requires one’s own auto insurer to extend up to $10,000 in coverage following a Florida car accident, regardless of fault. In 2012, lawmakers imposed restrictions on how much PIP coverage one could receive based on the severity of one’s injury. Insureds can now only glean $2,500 in PIP compensation for medical and disability benefits if the claimant didn’t suffer an emergency medical condition.

To pursue coverage outside of Florida’s no-fault system from the other driver, one must first meet the serious injury threshold, requiring evidence of permanent loss of a significant bodily function, permanent injury, significant and permanent scarring or death.

The Sunshine State is one of only a handful to adopt a no-fault approach to auto insurance. The two new bills that seek to alter the current model SB 378 and HB 771. These measures would shift the emphasis from personal injury protection coverage to a bodily injury model and require at least $25,000 in bodily injury coverage.

Our Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers know there are pros and cons to each approach, and lawmakers are going to have to consider them all carefully.

Personal injury protection extends coverage to you and any of your passengers and possibly other victims like pedestrians or bicyclists – no matter who is at-fault. Bodily injury protection coverage, however, is only going to cover injury you cause to someone else because of your negligence. It won’t cover the insured. Bodily injury coverage is not currently required under Florida law.

By removing the requirement to prove fault, PIP does save a fair number of crash victims time and money (though that’s not to say it’s never a good idea to work with an attorney to make sure you receive all the PIP to which you’re entitled). However, PIP does tend to mean higher insurance premiums. A bodily injury protection model will likely reduce insurance premiums, but it’s going to put many crash victims under immediate financial strain if they no longer have PIP coverage. A bodily injury coverage system can also drive up uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage costs if a fair number of drivers don’t carry it. Florida already has one of the highest rates of uninsured and underinsured drivers. It’s not uncommon as it is for damages in an accident to exceed the at-fault driver’s personal insurance. That’s why carrying UM/UIM coverage is so imperative – and will continue to be no matter what lawmakers decide.

In addition to SB 378 and HB771, another pending bill, SB 924, would shift the proof burden in bad faith insurance claims from the insurer onto the insured. Proponents say that to do so would reduce frivolous lawsuits, but this overlooks the fact that bad faith lawsuits are already sufficiently challenging to win as it is. This measure will only deny justice to those seriously and legitimately harmed by insurers acting in bad faith.

Our injury lawyers will be closely watching the progression of all three measures.

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

Additional Resources:

Florida car insurance 3rd highest in U.S. but will lawmakers act? Jan. 13, 2019, By Charles Elmore, Daytona Beach News-Journal

No one ever plans to get in a car accident, so it’s understandable few have given much thought as to how the civil claims process will unfold. Some of the most common misconceptions include:

• “I have to sue the other driver to collect damages.”
• “My car accident claim will go to trial.”
• “My auto insurance will cover me if I have serious injuries – that’s what it’s there for!”

The truth of the matter is, you may not have to sue anyone at all, and even if you do, your case isn’t likely to go to trial. Most Florida car accident injury claims are resolved through settlement negotiation.more

Even when cases do go to trial, it’s sometimes only to resolve a single matter of dispute. For example, it’s not uncommon for one driver to admit fault for causing the crash but argue the amount of compensation for which the plaintiff is asking is too high. In that case, the only question is, “How much should the defendant pay?”

Every case is different, though, so it’s important never to assume the best course of legal action to pursue financial recovery before speaking with an experienced Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyer.

Filing an Accident Report

If you get into a truly minor fender-bender – no one is hurt and property damage is under $500 – you can both pull over to a safe location and agree to exchange insurance information and file a claim with your own respective insurers, as Florida is a no-fault state.

However, for property damage in excess of $500 or if someone’s hurt or killed, law enforcement needs to be called immediately. One or more officers will respond (depending on the severity) and file a Florida car accident report.

Take photos, if you can. Note the weather and road conditions – and never apologize. Saying “sorry” is often the natural inclination, but it can imply fault. Avoid this – even if you think you were – because often all the facts of the case aren’t clear until later.

Florida’s No-Fault Car Insurance

Florida is a no-fault state for auto insurance, meaning no matter who caused the crash that your medical expenses and wage losses (up to $10,000) will be covered by your own Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance policy. It will additionally cover up to $5,000 in death benefits to your dependents if you die.

It is only if your injuries cross the statutory “serious injury threshold” that you are allowed to file a claim for payout from the bodily injury liability coverage of the other driver(s).

If the other driver doesn’t have insurance – or the insurance isn’t enough to cover the full extent of your losses, you can then file a claim with your own auto insurance company for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Settlement Negotiation

Sometimes, insurance agents will contact crash victims soon after a collision and start talking settlement. If your injuries were serious – you broke bones, you were hospitalized, had to take time off work, will be left with permanent significant scarring, etc. – it’s wise to leave those negotiations to a car accident lawyer.

Auto insurers are bound to certain standards by law, but it’s rare that any insurer is eager to pay up quickly on a policy limit, even if the crash was serious. Your attorney can help you negotiate a fair settlement at this stage – without ever having to take it to the courts.

“Settlement negotiation” refers to both sides’ effort to have the case resolved by mutual agreement rather than take their chances (or spend the time and money) having a judge/jury decide.

It only becomes a matter for a judge when those involved can’t agree and are at an impasse on critical issues.

Even then, settlement negotiation often continues leading all the way up to trial. Settlements are sometimes even reached on the eve of trial or just before a jury comes back with a verdict.

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

Additional Resources:

F.S. 627.736, Florida PIP Statute

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

We rank second in the country for having the most uninsured drivers (24 percent). We have the most bicycle accident deaths, the most pedestrian accident fatalities. We have more motorcycle deaths than any other state in the country (616 in 2015, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).

So perhaps we shouldn’t be all that surprised that Florida has ranked as one of the worst states for distracted driving. According to a new study by an online auto insurance provider EverQuote, Florida ranks second only to Louisiana in terms of distracted driving habits.

Although our Fort Lauderdale injury lawyers typically wouldn’t cite an auto insurance provider as an authority for crash victims, this study was noteworthy for the fact that it examined 2.7 million trips over 230 million miles driven. It conducted its analysis via users of its app, EverDrive.

The motion-sensing app calculated certain vehicle maneuvers – sudden acceleration, measured speeding, aggressive turning, hard braking while the driver’s phone was in motion. It did not record actions while the driver was not moving or when the phone was in sleep mode or even when the driver was using the hands-free device (though we know talking on the phone – even in hands-free – can be just as dangerous as texting).

What EverQuote’s findings suggest is that more than 90 percent of drivers across the country were distracted by their smartphone while behind the wheel at some point in the last 30 days.

Bear in mind too: This only involves cell phone distraction. Other forms of common distraction, such as eating, grooming, dealing with children in the backseat or changing the radio station, are not included here.

The findings are not all that shocking to local law enforcement officials in Fort Lauderdale, who told The Sun Sentinel they see distracted drivers pass every day. However, they are often powerless to do much about it, despite Florida’s anti-texting and driving law, F.S. 316.305. The reason is the statute makes texting while driving a secondary offense. That means police aren’t free to stop offenders solely for violation of that provision. Instead, law enforcement officers must first observe some other infraction or have other cause to stop the driver.

Many have argued this weak law makes it impossible for law enforcement agencies to truly get a handle on proper enforcement. Even when they do issue a citation, they can’t do so for merely talking on the phone and the fines are low. A new bill has been introduced that would bump up texting and driving to a primary offense. However, it seems unlikely to pass before the close of this legislative session at the end of the month.

The NHTSA recently released a new report indicating distracted driving crashes account for 15 percent of all fatal crashes and 14 percent of all police-reported crashes. In 2015, there were 3,500 people killed and 391,000 injured in traffic crashes that involved a distracted driver. Nine percent of all drivers between the ages of 15 and 19 involved in fatal crashes were reportedly distracted at the time of the collision. There were also 551 “non-occupants” (i.e., bicyclists and pedestrians) killed in these collisions in that single year.

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

Additional Resources:

Florida second-worst state for distracted driving, study says, April 12, 2017, By Wayne K. Roustan, Sun Sentinel

More Blog Entries:

Florida Ridesharing Insurance Bill Clears State Senate, April 10, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Under the proposed rule, all new cars and like trucks would communicate wirelessly not just with one another, but with traffic lights and other roadway infrastructure. NHTSA officials say the technology has the potential to transform driving and dramatically slash the number of traffic deaths every year. The rule would be mandatory for all new model vehicles, if the rule is approved.

So how exactly would this work? Well first, it’s important to outline what V2V is. It is a type of crash avoidance technology that hinges on the communication of information between nearby vehicles that can warn drivers about possibly hazardous situations that might lead to a collision. For instance, V2V technology could alert a driver that the vehicle up ahead is breaking, so they need to slow down. It could also inform a motorist that it isn’t safe to go through an intersection because another vehicle – one that can’t yet be seen by the driver – is fast approaching that same intersection. The information communicated would involve short-range data (about 300 meters) that would include other vehicle information such as:

• Location
• Speed
• Direction
• Breaking status

This information exceeds what can be gleaned from the current cameras, radar and ultrasonic sensors that many vehicles are currently affixed with. V2V communications can also detect a threat much sooner than camera sensors or radar. In fact, the data is shot out at a rate of about 10 times per second.more

The proposed rule is actually more than a decade in the making, and involves input from auto manufacturers, as well as state, federal and local transportation departments and academic institutions.

Those who study the technology say it will provide a 360-degree awareness of what’s happening all around us, which could prevent or mitigate the severity of approximately 80 percent of car accidents that don’t involve alcohol or drugs. There are approximately 30,000 fatal crashes in the U.S every year, and roughly a third of those involve drunk drivers.

The Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers has said it is reviewing the exact proposal, but overall agrees that V2V is likely to be an asset offered complementary to other automated safety features that are available in many new model vehicles. The proposal would require all of these systems to essentially speak the same language with some standardized messages so that drivers wouldn’t have a false sense of security just because another nearby vehicle didn’t “talk” to theirs.

In addition to helping to prevent crashes, the technology also has the potential to help reduce congestion. Traffic lights would have an idea of how long they should stay green because they would be able to sense the level of traffic. That could help lower unnecessary wait times. The technology could also alert drivers if there is a a great deal of congestion on a planned route, allowing motorists the opportunity to plan an alternate route.

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

Additional Resources:

Government to Require Cars Be Able to Talk to Each Other, Dec. 13, 2016, Associated Press

More Blog Entries:

Delray Beach Intersection Won’t Get New Light, Despite Fatal Crash, Dec. 10, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources:

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

More Blog Entries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources:

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

More Blog Entries:

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

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

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

And of course, the surgery is extremely expensive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources:

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

More Blog Entries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources:

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

More Blog Entries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources:

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

More Blog Entries:

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

The case centers on allegedly defective Takata airbags, which are reported to have played a role in at least 10 deaths and more than 100 injuries when they improperly inflate and spew metal debris into the faces and necks of front seat occupants.

Vehicles made by 14 different automakers were recalled in what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has called the biggest and most complex recalls to date. Most of the bags were installed in vehicles from 2002 through 2015.

This case involved family members of a woman who died three months ago following a 2014 Florida car accident in which she was traveling in her 2001 Honda.

The settlement came just ahead of a hearing requested by plaintiffs’ attorney in which he was requesting permission to pursue punitive damages and also compel the testimony of embattled Takata president Shigehisa Takada. Had the court ordered it, it would have been the first time his testimony would have been required at deposition after millions of vehicles were recalled for the defective air bags.

Plaintiffs’ attorney said that frankly, he did not expect a settlement at that juncture. There were key issues that were still in dispute and he sought resolution on those issues. The settlement offer – which is confidential – was a surprise. Still, he said he believes all parties are “pleased.”

Although these defective airbags were manufactured in Japan, Florida has been a key battleground with regard to the product liability litigation. First of all, it is believed that heat triggers a chemical reaction in the airbags that results in the malfunction. That has meant Florida is the site of several of these accidents.

Further, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) led the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation into investigating the defective inflators. The committee’s staff report revealed manipulation of the data by Takata, in addition to clear warning signs missed or overlooked by the company.

There were 34 million recalled in the U.S. plus 7 million recalled worldwide. That is expected to expand to 40 million by 2019.

In this case, decedent drove through a red light at about 30 miles per hour back in June 2014 and crashed into another vehicle that was traveling about 20 mph. At first, her Honda Civics airbags did not deploy. However, when it did deploy, it did so with such force that she suffered a broken neck and back. She was declared quadriplegic, paralyzed from the neck down. Her condition worsened over the next two years and she died at the age of 77 in a nursing home.

The airbag in her Honda Civic was recalled just two days after the crash.

Our Fort Lauderdale injury attorneys know that while the NHTSA fined Honda about $70 million due to improper reporting of injuries and deaths (some 1,729 cases in all), many others are just coming to light – and it’s not just Honda either. Takata is the largest manufacturer of airbags in the world.

It’s plausible that the reason this case was settled so quickly was that Takata attorneys wanted to avoid having their CEO testify. Attorneys for plaintiff say that although the case didn’t move far through the litigation process, the process did serve to “lift the veil” on certain issues, which could be valuable in future cases.

Additional Resources:

Sides reach surprise settlement in airbag death suit; Takata head avoids taking witness stand, July 15, 2016, By Dan Scanlan, The Florida Times-Union

More Blog Entries:

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

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

Now, a jury in Texas has awarded his family $124 million, assigning 55 percent of the blame to the car manufacturer. Another 25 percent of the blame was assigned to the driver who rear-ended the car he was in. His father was assigned 20 percent liability, because neither he nor his son, who was seated directly behind him, were wearing a seat belt.

This tragic case highlights not only the estimated 100 serious injuries – mostly to children – that resulted from this specific defect since 1989, but also the fact that defective vehicles resulted in a record 900 recalls last year. In total, 51 million vehicles were taken off the market for a myriad of dangerous aspects, from defective airbags to dysfunctional brakes.

This high number was fueled in part by the fact the government had levied huge fines against a handful of companies for failure to take fast enough action on serious safety concerns. This prompted a flood of recall action by companies hoping to avoid similar fines.

In the Texas case, Rivera v. Cordova, Audi AG et al., it was alleged the German car company knew its seats had the potential to dangerously collapse in the event of a rear-end crash, but allowed them into production anyway.

According to the complaint, the auto manufacturer deemed this defect acceptable because, engineers reportedly reasoned, the knees of the rear seat passenger would be sufficient to help absorb the force of the seat falling back. But there was no evidence presented tending to show the auto maker conducted a knee-bolster test to make sure that someone’s knees really could safely absorb such impact. And further, there was no indication they had considered whether a child’s knees in particularly could safely support a seat falling back.

Finally, no other car manufacturers used this kind of standard in determining whether a seat was safe for use.

According to court records, the young boy was sitting in the backseat with his younger brother. Neither were wearing a seat belt and neither was their father, who was driving. The father was stopped behind a school bus.

A driver behind them failed to stop and ended up striking the vehicle from behind. The father’s seat collapsed backward and the father slid into the back seat, his head striking his son’s head, causing severe injury. The boy nearly died, and know lives with a traumatic brain injury, partial paralysis, blindness in one eye.

His younger brother, however, escaped the car accident relatively unscathed, leading jurors to believe he would have also, had it not been for the collapsing seat.

His mother told the court that he can no longer tell her the simple words, “I love you.”

The auto manufacturer denied the seats were defective, and a spokesman pointed to the fact that neither the boy nor his father were wearing a seat belt. It’s not clear yet whether the defendant will appeal.

The verdict does not include any punitive damages.

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

Additional Resources:

S.A. Family Wins $124M Lawsuit Against Audi, Still Fighting for Change, March 10, 2016, By Sharon Ko, KENS5

More Blog Entries:

Florida Supreme Court: Insurers Can’t Unreasonably Delay, March 14, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog