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

As our Fort Lauderdale personal injury lawyers can explain, this could impact how we as attorneys approach settlement negotiations.

The case that kickstarted the dispute in Gallardo v. Marstiller is a tragic one. A 13-year-old girl has been left in a persistent vegetative state after she was hit by a truck while getting off a school bus. She received a settlement of $800,000 against the owner of the truck, the driver, and the school board. (The cost of catastrophic injuries like this for someone so young can easily stretch into many millions of dollars over her lifetime.)

But then, the Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration imposed a lien on her settlement money, asserting that it was entitled to seize $300,000 of the money that was set aside for past and future medical expenses. The district court in Florida ruled against the state, arguing the federal Medicaid Act barred the state from being reimbursed for past paid medical expenses from the portion of the settlement that is set aside for future medical expenses. In the summer of 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed in favor of the state’s action.

It was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in January and is expected to rule in the coming months.

This was expected to be a fairly straightforward question of statutory interpretation on what state Medicaid programs should receive from third-party litigation – but the high court was surprisingly divided. Most justices appeared to agree that where the state had paid for injuries that the beneficiary suffered, it had a right to take from the part of the settlement/damages that is apportioned to past medical expenses. The problem arises, though, when the settlement reached for past medical expenses isn’t actually enough to repay Medicaid for what it paid. So then is the state also allowed to take part of the settlement set aside for future medical expenses?

Federal statutory guidance on this is a bit confusing. For starters, Medicaid is responsible for paying medical expenses. It does not loan money so they can be reimbursed later. So for the most part, the state isn’t allowed to recover its expenses from the person who was injured. But the game changes when a third-party was responsible for the injury and thus is liable to pay for the injured person’s expenses. In that instance, the state can seek reimbursement from that third party, per 42 USC 1396k(a)(1)(A). The way that statute is worded though, it might seem to allow for collection for past payments from a future medical expense fund. However, a bit further down, the provision seems to indicate a narrower definition.

The justices focused a lot of analysis on the statutory language. Several of their initial comments seeming to suggest that the language supports the state’s view that it can collect on all medical expense payouts, whether for past or future medical expenses, up to the amount the state has paid. However, as the discussion progressed, a number of the justices seemed to be dissatisfied with the broad implications of the state’s legal interpretation. By all accounts, Sotomayor appeared firmly against the state’s position, but how the other justices will decide is still up in the air.

Although it’s understood that the state has the right to subrogation and recovery of payments it’s already made, the broader interpretation could require personal injury lawyers representing Medicaid-covered clients to negotiate for higher reimbursement of damages dedicated to all medical expense reimbursements.

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

Additional Resources: SCOTUS Hears Arguments on Florida Medicaid Reimbursement Dispute, Jan. 21, 2022, SCOTUS Blog More Blog Entries: What if the Driver Who Hit Me Was Not Insured?, Aug. 15, 2021, Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog

As our Fort Lauderdale car accident attorneys can explain, victims of pedestrian accidents have several legal avenues for compensation and accountability. These include no-fault personal injury protection (PIP) benefits, as well as bodily injury liability claims against at-fault drivers/vehicle owners/employers and possibly uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

Several recent Florida pedestrian accident lawsuits stem from unspeakable tragedy: Two college students killed and a handful more injured in two pedestrian accidents near the same area just a month apart.more

In the first case, an 18-year-old freshman at the University of Florida in Gainesville was struck in a crosswalk by the driver of a BMW who fled the scene. She died on the roadway. According to her family’s wrongful death lawsuit, the vehicle was later discovered at a local auto repair shop with blood and damage to the hood.

A few weeks alter, a 19-year-old student was struck and killed while four others were seriously injured as they stood on a sidewalk near the university. Several lawsuits filed after that incident name the 28-year-old driver as well as Uber, for whom he was reportedly working at the time he collided with another vehicle near the intersection, causing the second vehicle to spin out of control and hit the crowd. Speed was believed to have been a factor.

At the university, several organizations, including Gators Against Student Pedestrian Deaths and Florida Not One More have cropped up to advocate for more pedestrian-friendly roads, particularly around universities, where most students travel on foot or bicycle.

Florida Pedestrian Accident Facts

According to the GHSA, most pedestrian accidents take place on local roads, at night and away from intersections. This suggests the need for road crossings that are safer and ways to make both vehicles and pedestrians more visible in the dark. Although pedestrian deaths overall have risen nationally, those at night spiked nearly 70 percent compared to those in the day, which increased 16 percent.

The larger the vehicle the more likely a serious injury or fatality. Pedestrians who are struck by a large sport utility vehicle are two times as likely to die of their injuries compared to those hit by a car. Although there are more passenger cars involved in fatal pedestrian accidents, the increasing popularity of SUVs is one factor in why deadly pedestrian accidents have spiked.

Pedestrians are uniquely at a disadvantage in a collision, being without seat belts, helmets or other protections as automobile occupants and operators.

Holding drivers accountable for careless, reckless or criminal behavior behind the wheel is what we do. If you have been injured in a Florida pedestrian accident, our dedicated Fort Lauderdale injury lawyers are committed to securing fair compensation and justice for what you’ve endured.

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

Additional Resources:

Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State, 2019, GHSA

Cruise ship injury lawsuits have compiled in recent years, following a string of victories by plaintiffs alleging cruise ship owners and staff did not protect them from criminal assault resulting in serious physical and psychological injury – despite knowing this was a common risk.

In this case, according to court records, plaintiff was plied with alcohol by a group of adult men who then guided her, in full view of security cameras, stumbling, back to a private cabin and took turns sexually assaulting her. She was 15-years-old. The girl was on a seven-day cruise with her grandparents and two sisters.more

The Miami Herald report that sexual assaults are the No. 1 most common crime reported on cruise ships. The U.S. Department of Transportation revealed that just in the first three months of 2019, cruise lines reported 18 sexual assaults to federal authorities. Meanwhile, there were six reported thefts over $10,000 and one physical assault resulting in serious bodily injury. We know that sexual assault is a vastly under-reported crime as it is, but cruise ship companies are mandated by federal law to report serious crimes committed either in U.S. waters or against U.S. citizens to the FBI. that’s under a 2010 law intended to reduce maritime crime.

How Can a Third Party Be Liable for Criminal Attack?

Although no one can be criminally prosecuted for a crime but the person(s) alleged to be directly responsible, injury attorneys in Fort Lauderdale can explain that third parties can be held civilly liable when they have a special relationship to the alleged victim that created the expectation of duty or protection.

Property owners, for example, owe certain duties of care to guests, particularly if the guests are members of the public invited for the financial gain of the owner. Failure to protect guests from dangers that are known or foreseeable is a form of premises liability.

In this case, plaintiffs argue the sheer number of sexual assaults that are reported on cruise ships – proportionate to other crimes and compared to its frequency at other places of business on land – alerted defendant cruise line (and others) that this is a serious and ongoing problem.

The trial court’s previous decision to dismiss the case was based on the assertion that the cruise company could not have foreseen the teenager was at-risk, and thus had no duty to protect her.

In its reversal, the 11th Circuit flatly disagreed with that conclusion as a matter of law, noting how prevalent sexual assaults are aboard not only this cruise line but all of them.

That the ruling was handed down by an appellate circuit that handles most if not all federal claims for injury aboard cruise ships off the coast of Florida is significant, allowing this plaintiff – and possibly others that follow – the ability to establish that rapes on cruise ships are a danger about which these companies know – and have an obligation to their passengers to protect against. Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources

CRUISE VESSEL SECURITY AND SAFETY ACT (CVSSA) STATISTICAL COMPILATION, Jan. 1 – March 31, 2019, USDOT

Our Fort Lauderdale truck accident lawyers don’t find this surprising at all, in particular after viewing the latest U.S. Department of Transportation data on Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Analysis Division.

The data shows there were nearly 4,900 trucks and buses involved in deadly crashes in 2017 – which was a 9 percent increase from the number recorded just a year earlier. Further, the number of large trucks (defined as those over 10,000 pounds) and buses involved in fatal crashes spiked 42 percent from the record low of 3,432 in 2009.

If there is any silver lining, it is perhaps that the 2017 high is still 7 percent lower from the all-time peak in 2005, when 5,321 large trucks and buses were involved in deadly crashes.

It’s not even the fact that large trucks and buses are being increasingly utilized. When factoring truck accident and bus accident deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, the number of deadly truck crashes was still up nearly 7 percent from 2016 to 2017.

With regard just to bus crashes, intercity buses accounted for 13 percent of fatal crashes from 2007 to 2017, while school buses and transit buses accounted for 40 percent and 35 percent, respectively.

Meanwhile, the number of large trucks involved in deadly wrecks rose by 10 percent during this same time frame.

In Florida, large trucks were involved in a low of 181 deadly crashes in both 2008 and 2009, but that has since risen to 292 as of 2017 – a 63 percent increase.

Why Florida Large Truck Crashes are Tougher to Litigate

When it comes to any kind of a crash, Florida is considered a no-fault state, meaning regardless of who caused the crash, one’s own insurer will be the first from which one files for damages. This is down with the mandated Personal Injury Protection (or PIP) benefits one carries with their own insurer. (Motorcycles are the exception here.)

However, PIP only covers up to $10,000 in damages – and that assumes one requires emergent injury treatment; otherwise, $2,500 is the most one can expect from PIP. As anyone who has ever sustained injuries in a large truck crash can attest, this is a small fraction of the damages an occupant of a vehicle other than truck typically sustains, thanks primarily to the size differential of the two vehicles. The FMCSA in fact estimated even back in 2007 that the estimated cost of police-reported crashes involving trucks with a gross weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more was approximately $91,000. This incorporates not only one’s reduced life expectancy from the crash, but also their lost productivity plus the monetized value of pain, suffering, loss of life quality and family losses due to death or injury.

Inflation costs mean one can expect losses to be even higher today, as this was more than a decade ago at this point.

For this reason alone, trucking companies fight tooth-and-nail to reduce their own liability. Beyond that, firms seek to layer their liability by outsourcing everything from truck ownership to drivers. Battling through this bureaucratic red tape requires an experienced Fort Lauderdale truck accident law firm with ample resources and dedicated attorneys.

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

Additional Resources:

Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Analysis Division, March 2019

More Blog Entries:

Florida No. 1. for Pedestrian Accident Risk, Its Metro Areas Ranking 8 of Top 10, Feb. 6, 2019, Fort Lauderdale Truck Accident Attorney Blog

The exclusive remedy provision of workers’ compensation law stipulates it’s your only recourse against an employer. If you are left seriously injured or permanently disabled, it’s important to discuss with a South Florida injury attorney whether any third parties were negligent and, if so, whether they could be held liable to pay additional compensation.

Construction workers, who tend to have a higher-than-average rate of injury, often have grounds for third-party liability claims because frequently, there are many different entities involved with various responsibilities pertaining to safety. If your co-worker makes a mistake that results in your injury, you probably won’t have grounds to pursue anything additional there. However, if a property owner, general contractor, subcontractor, tool manufacturer or some other party fails in exercising a duty of care owed to workers on site, you might have a third-party claim. Also, if your employer did NOT have workers’ compensation insurance as required by law, you should be able to pursue an injury lawsuit against them as well. Prevailing in a Third-Party Liability Work Injury Claim

One such claim in California (which has a similar exclusive remedy provision of workers’ compensation, but allows for third-party liability) was recently resolved with an appellate court affirming a verdict in excess of $7 million in favor of an employee seriously injured by an arc flash while working with a live circuit breaker. His damage award was reduced 9 percent in proportion to his own purported fault. The appellate court did reverse and remand on the issue of how the damages were apportioned between the defendants, which included a contractor and the owner of the cogeneration plant where the accident happened. (Plaintiff’s own employer was deemed not liable.) Trial court rejected defense’s post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict, but did find the jury improperly apportioned the damages among the defendants. The appellate court affirmed, finding the jury had ample evidence to support its finding that the building owner negligently exercised control over the safety conditions of the job site, but that the apportionment of damages did require reconsideration.

Testing Exclusive Remedy After Florida Worker Death

In a somewhat similar case out of Florida wherein plaintiffs sought compensation in addition to workers’ compensation, the family of an electrician’s apprentice for an energy company who died in 2015 while testing transformers at a Reddick substation. An investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) resulted in $90,000 in proposed fines (later reduced to $35,000 via settlement) for numerous willful and serious violations. Exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation prohibits claims of negligence against an employer for work injuries, except in the very limited situation presented in F.S. 440.11, which holds in the case of a worker who dies, the estate can sue if they can prove both employer had intentionally dangerous protocol AND the worker was ignorant of the risk. Unfortunately, our Fort Lauderdale injury attorneys are unaware of any case in Florida that has thusfar been successful with this type of claim, and this one sadly was no different. This is why third-party liability claims following a work injury are usually your best bet.

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

Additional Resources:

Sandoval v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Oct. 19, 2018, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One

More Blog Entries:

Worker Injury in Defective Ladder Fall Spurs Lawsuit Against Hotel-Casino, Sept. 29, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Work Injury Attorney Blog

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

Work Zone Crash Causes Serious Personal Injury

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

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

Personal Injury Verdict Affirmed

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources:

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

More Blog Entries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Underinsured motorist coverage will cover in the event you are:

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources:

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

More Blog Entries:

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

The no-fault insurance for motor vehicles allows that there is “no-fault” when it comes to paying out an auto insurance claim following a car accident under a certain amount. Instead, drivers are required to carry personal injury protection (PIP) coverage, which extends payment for any medical expenses and certain non-medical costs associated with the crash, such as lost wages or replacement benefits (i.e., having someone come help you clean your house while you are unable to do so). All Florida drivers are required to carry a minimum level of PIP benefits in addition to liability insurance requirements. Then if they are involved in a crash, they file a claim with their own auto insurer. The only way they can pursue a claim outside that no-fault system is if the injuries are considered permanent or permanently disfiguring/ scarring or if there is some significant or total loss of an important bodily function. Drivers have to carry at least $10,000 in PIP benefits.

Legislators have decided that in the spring, they will mull a proposal to scrap the no-fault insurance law that has been followed in the state since the 1970s.

The intended purpose of PIP was to offer a base-level of support – particularly for medical expenses – for people who were injured in a Florida car accident, no matter who was at-fault.

However, costs of insurance in recent years have soared, even in the face of state-level reforms passed five years ago to help cushion the added expenses the insurance industry attributes to fraud. Although those measures did reduce the PIP rates by about 14.5 percent between 2013 and 2014, they have unfortunately risen nearly 26 percent between 2015 and 2016.

Industry insiders say there are several reasons for this, including:

• Higher costs for medical treatment.
• Drivers who are traveling greater distances/ more miles on average.
• More motor vehicle crashes.

Drivers in Florida pay the fifth-highest monthly premiums for auto insurance in the country, according to the Office of Insurance Regulation.

The proposed bill to end no-fault insurance in the Sunshine State was introduced by Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, who asserts that by moving from a no-fault state to a tort state, the onus to cover the cost of treatment and/or property damage would fall on the driver who was to blame for the crash. Of the 38 tort states, all except one also requires drivers to purchase bodily injury liability insurance. There are some raising questions about how much voters are actually going to save when they have to turn around and buy this other type of coverage. Some of those pushing for repeal want to require drivers to purchase a minimum of $25,000 in bodily injury coverage per persona and $50,000 per occurrence.

Health care organizations urge lawmakers not to repeal, arguing PIP is essential to some 2.6 million residents who don’t have health insurance, should they be involved in a motor vehicle accident.

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

Additional Resources:

Lawmakers to weigh costs, benefits of no-fault insurance repeal, Jan. 24, 2017, By Ron Hurtibise, Sun Sentinel

More Blog Entries:

Florida Most Dangerous Place for Pedestrians, Analysis Shows, Jan. 21, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog

Specifically, plaintiffs say the company failed to install and implement a safer alternative design that would have halted a driver from accessing the app while speeding down the highway.

According to court records in Modisette v. Apple Inc., filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County, the girl was in a booster seat in the rear passenger seat, behind her father, who was driving. He slowed his vehicle because traffic ahead on the highway was backed to a standstill. However, the driver behind them, a 22-year-old from Florida in a sport utility vehicle, apparently didn’t notice the slowed traffic as he barreled down the road at 65 mph. He slammed into the back of the car. Everyone was injured, the little girl and her dad most severely. He survived. She did not.

Public reaction to the lawsuit has been mixed, with many wondering how it’s possible that a technology company could be responsible for the negligent actions of a user. After all, where is the personal responsibility? And isn’t this akin to suing a gun manufacturer when someone recklessly pulls the trigger?

The reality is, there is well-established legal precedence that allows for third-party liability under certain circumstances. For example, we may pursue a premises liability lawsuit against a property owner who could have reasonably foreseen a criminal attack on site, yet failed to do enough to protect lawful guests. We might also take legal action against a bar or restaurant that served alcohol to an underage person who then went out and drunkenly crashed a car. Similarly, we can hold a company vicariously liable for the negligent actions of an employee or a car owner responsible for the wrongful acts of someone else who had permission to use that vehicle. So this is not a new concept. The question is whether the technology manufacturer owed a duty of care to people on the road.

The other point that is important to note is that while the family is suing Apple, that doesn’t necessarily mean the driver is off-the-hook. He (and his auto insurance company) can also be liable for the accident.

On a related note, as distracted driving crashes like this one increase across the country – including in Florida, where 200 people died in such distracted driving accidents last year – lawmakers are looking to tighten the existing distracted driving laws. Texting and driving is illegal in Florida, but the penalty is just a $30 ticket – not much of a deterrent. It’s also a secondary offense, meaning officers can’t initiate a traffic stop on that basis alone. A bill just proposed would make it a primary offense by July of this year and would increase the penalties.

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

Additional Resources:

Family Sues Apple, Claiming FaceTime Distracted Driver in Crash That Killed 5-Year-Old Daughter, Jan. 2, 2017, ABC News

More Blog Entries:

Kaplan v. Dutra – Protecting Debtor’s Personal Injury Claims in Bankruptcy, Jan. 3, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog

First, there is consideration that – generally regardless of fault – an employee injured while working can collect workers’ compensation.

Second, if the employee was at-fault and others are injured, those injured persons may seek compensation from the employer by alleging vicarious liability (via the legal theory of “respondeat superior,” which is Latin for, “Let the Master Answer”) or for direct liability (i.e., inadequate training, negligent hiring, inadequate supervision, unsafe equipment, etc.). Even if the employee wasn’t technically on-the-clock, there could be a claim for vicarious liability against the company if the worker was driving the company vehicle. That’s because in Florida, motor vehicles are known as inherently dangerous instrumentalities, and therefore, owners can be held responsible for the negligence of anyone entrusted to operate them. more

There are of course exceptions and the law can get rather tricky. Sometimes, the question of liability for car accident injuries rests on some of the same issues that would apply in a workers’ compensation case (i.e., Was the worker coming-and-going? Was the worker acting in the course and scope of employment? Was the accident truly work-related?).

In the recent case of Jorge v. Culinary Inst. of Am., the question was whether a driver’s employer could be held liable for injuries caused by an employee who ran over two pedestrians.

According to California appellate court records, defendant was a chef instructor who taught at a local culinary school. He drove his own vehicle to work, parked it and worked his shift. When his shift was over, he got back into his own vehicle and started back home. In his vehicle, he had some knives and a few dirty chef jackets. While on the way home, he struck a 14-year-old pedestrian and his then-girlfriend. This was in February 2010.

A legal representative for the boy filed a lawsuit seeking to hold accountable for the boy’s injuries both the driver and the driver’s employer, the culinary school. The school moved for summary judgment on grounds it was not vicariously liable under the respondeat superior doctrine because he wasn’t acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Trial court denied that motion, stating the question of whether the driver was acting in the course and scope of employment was a matter of fact for jurors to decide.

The case went to trial and jurors found both the driver and the school liable. The school sought a judgment notwithstanding verdict, which was denied. The driver settled his portion for $30,000 (before the damages portion of trial began). Jurors later found the school was liable for nearly $900,000 in damages.

The California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District, Division Two, reversed. The court found the school could not be liable for personal injuries caused by its employee’s negligence when there as no evidence the employee was acting in the course and scope of employment at the time of the wreck. The fact of the knives and dirty coats in the car didn’t change that. The worker wasn’t driving his employer’s car. The employer didn’t require him to have his vehicle accessible during his work day. Based on all of these factors, the court ruled, defendant should have been granted summary judgment.

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

Additional Resources:

Jorge v. Culinary Inst. of Am., Sept. 16, 2016, California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District, Division Two

More Blog Entries:

Johnson v. Colorado – Restitution From Criminal Case May Not Cover All Your Personal Injury Damages, Sept. 16, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog

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

• Uber
• The Uber Driver
• The Deputy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources:

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

More Blog Entries:

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

Auto insurance policy limits are generally expressed as:

• Amount per person;
• Amount per accident.

So let’s say there is a policy that allows $100,000 per person and up to $150,000 per accident. That would mean if only one person is hurt, he or she could collect up to $100,000. However, if two people equally suffer $100,000 in damages, the most either could collect would be $75,000 – because the policy limit is $150,000.

That’s why whenever possible in cases where more than two vehicles are involved, our Fort Lauderdale accident attorneys will look to see whether it’s possible that there were technically two or more accidents – as opposed to a single accident.

This might sound a bit tricky, but it usually comes into play in multiple-vehicle accident claims, such as a pileup on the interstate. These “chain reaction” crashes may actually be deemed numerous crashes for insurance purposes. Often it will depend on how each vehicle came in contact with the other, and whether the very first incident played an integral role in the next and so on.

The recent case of Hughes v. Farmers Auto Ins. Ass’n is one such example of a case where it was argued that numerous accidents had occurred, rather than just one.

According to court records, this was an Iowa Supreme Court case in which the court was asked to determine whether a chain reaction crash that resulted in separate impacts that occurred seconds apart was in fact one “accident” or two.

A sport utility vehicle was traveling the wrong direction down a highway. The SUV collided with a semi-truck, totaling the SUV and killing the driver. The semi-truck driver suffered injuries.

Seconds later, a motorcyclist slammed into that totaled SUV, which was still in the middle of the road. The motorcyclist also suffered serious injuries, including amputation of his leg.

The truck driver and the motorcyclist filed a request for a declaratory judgment from the trial court, seeking to establish for purposes of claims against the SUV’s insurance that there had been two accidents – not one. Specifically, they both wanted to maximize the amount they could collect under the SUV’s per-accident limit on bodily injury liability insurance.

The district court granted a summary judgment in favor of the insurer on this matter. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed.

The state high court noted the number of vehicles involved in the accident didn’t matter so much as the cause of each impact.

Although the court noted it’s not uncommon to refer to a multi-vehicle “accident” as a singular event when in fact there may have been multiple collisions, in this case, there was just one accident. The court took note of the fact that it would be an “extremely rare occurrence” that three or more vehicle would collide in the exact same place at almost the exact same time and not have it be a single crash.

When accidents are separated by time, space or cause, it is then that they may be deemed multiple accidents, instead of just one.

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

Additional Resources:

Hughes v. Farmers Auto Ins. Ass’n , April 1, 2016, Iowa Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Premises Liability for Dangerous Spring Break Gathering, April 2, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Accident Lawyer Blog

The case, according to a recently-filed lawsuit, is long-term consumption of energy drinks. He reportedly drank four every single day, which is the caffeine equivalent of 12 Coca-Colas. He did this for 10 years. Now, he’s awaiting a liver transplant.

His case is one of five filed against Monster Beverage Corp., asserting claims of severe and almost deadly health problems resulting from longtime use of the drink. It’s alleged that habitual drinkers of the products suffer renal failure, stroke and heart attacks, among other health concerns.

Plaintiffs alleged the beverage company is negligent, that these drinks are defectively designed and that consumers weren’t adequately warn about the known risks of the drinks. Attorneys representing the consumers in these personal injury lawsuits say the drinks are “as bad for young people as cigarettes.”

Further, they allege there is a lack of transparency between the company and consumer. The company is aware of the danger, attorneys say. In fact, this isn’t even the first time the company has been sued for these type of claims. Yet, they have not changed their formula, practices or labels.

Last year, the company settled out-of-court two wrongful death lawsuits brought by family members of two men who died after allegedly consuming the drinks. One was 19 and drank two cans of the caffeine bomb every day for three years. He died of a heart arrhythmia and cardiomyopathy. His parents later alleged the company didn’t warn their son about the risks.

In another case, the widow of a man who died after consuming Monster Energy drink every day for two weeks before he died indicated he had 240 milligrams of caffeine in his system when he died.

There was also the case of a 14-year-old girl who reportedly died of caffeine toxicity. Although she had a heart condition, she reportedly suffered a heart attack after downing two of the 24-oz cans in a single day. An autopsy indicated the caffeine in her body blocked her heart’s ability to pump blood.

The details of those settlements haven’t been made public.

The company has countered that its products are safe and that these health ailments and deaths are coincidental. A Starbucks medium coffee has more caffeine than their products, a spokesperson insists. The representative called this new flurry of cases a “cottage industry” for injury lawyers.

Those filing the case have scoffed at that, saying the company settled these cases out-of-court, required plaintiffs to sign a confidentiality agreement and never released their total formula.

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has looked into this issue before, following consumer claims against both Monster and 5-Hour Energy.

Court papers in some of these recent cases indicate caffeine could potentially be fatal if the dose is between 200 to 400 milligrams. The lawsuits allege a single, 16-ounce can of the drink contains 160 milligrams of caffeine.

The product is classified as a “dietary supplement” rather than a “food,” which is what has allowed it to sidestep the caffeine limitations imposed on other beverages.

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

Additional Resources:

Monster Energy Drink Almost Killed Us, Lawsuits Claim, Feb. 11, 2016, By Kate Briquelet, The Daily Beast

More Blog Entries:

Researchers: Economic Improvement Tied to Uptick in Traffic Deaths, Feb. 10, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog

The collateral source rule, also sometimes referred to as the collateral source doctrine, prohibits the admission of evidence that a plaintiff or victim has received compensation from some source other than defendant. The idea is a defendant shouldn’t have to pay less for a tortious act just because a plaintiff had health insurance or collected workers’ compensation.

Still, since 1984, the court had allowed a limited admission of evidence regarding certain kinds of free or low-cost future collateral source benefits. But that has now changed. In the Joerg case, the court ruled all defendants are barred from introducing evidence of collateral source benefits plaintiffs may receive in the future. These include Medicare and Medicaid. Given that almost all Americans will at least collect on Medicare at some point in their lives, the decision has widespread implications in personal injury law.

In many personal injury lawsuits in Florida, recovery of medical expenses – including future expenses – is a big piece of the puzzle.

According to court records in Joerg, plaintiff here is a mentally disabled adult who lived with his parents his whole life and never worked. As a result of his situation, he received Medicare for medical bills. One day in November 2007, plaintiff was riding his bicycle when he was struck by a motor vehicle.

He filed a negligence action against the driver, as well as with respondant in this case, who was his own uninsured motorist carrier. Before trial, plaintiff withdrew his action against driver and pressed his case against the insurer.

His attorneys filed a motion to exclude all evidence of any collateral source of evidence to which plaintiff was entitled – including discounted benefits under the federal programs. Trial court granted this motion, but only with respect to past medical bills. When attorneys moved for reconsideration, trial court vacated that prior ruling and allowed the insurer to introduce evidence of future medical bills for specific treatment or services available to all citizens, regardless of wealth. However, it prohibited insurer from presenting evidence of future Medicare or Medicaid benefits.

Following a four-day trial, jurors awarded plaintiff $1.5 million – including nearly $470,000 in future medical expenses.

Insurer appealed, and the Second District affirmed on all issues – except with regard to the admissibility of future medical benefits. The court ruled that because plaintiff’s federal benefits were free and unearned, they should not be excluded by the collateral source rule. District court reversed on the issue of future damages and remanded.

Plaintiff then appealed to state supreme court. Justices held it was improper to introduce evidence regarding Medicare benefits because some are required to reimburse the agency for future benefits, and plus, there is no guarantee of these benefits. The court also ruled it was speculative to attempt to calculate damage awards based on benefits plaintiff hadn’t yet received and might never receive. Federal benefits – and eligibility for those benefits – are as always uncertain because they are subject to limited public funding or legislative action that’s unpredictable.

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

Additional Resources:

Joerg v. State Farm, Oct. 15, 2015, Florida Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Roma v. Moreira – Duty of Landlord to Prevent Tenant Injuries, Nov. 24, 2015, Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Attorney Blog