This is often a critical first step because actuaries, who are experts in mathematics, statistics, and financial theory, can help us get a better sense of the actual economic loss involved in a case. That reduces the uncertainty when it comes to personal injury settlement negotiations.

The vast majority of Fort Lauderdale personal injury cases are resolved through negotiation with insurers and defendants (as opposed to a trial or even litigation). Before we issue a demand letter or even consider a settlement offer from the other side, we need to know the full extent of your losses.

That might seem simple. As your attorney, we may have a pretty accurate ballpark estimate just from our years of experience in practicing personal injury law. But we’re not just tallying the actual wages you’ve already lost and bills you already owe. We want to know how this incident is going to continue to impact you professionally, financially, physically, mentally, and emotionally – for years to come. Only then can we confidently request or accept a settlement offer.

A common method to determine these kind of damages is called the “multiplier-multiplicand method” or the “courts method.” Basically, we’re looking at the amount of estimated annual loss, multiplied by the number of years that loss is expected to continue. Accuracy is important in these calculations, but without guidance from someone with expertise in finance and risk assessment, these kinds of forecasts can be somewhat subjective and even inaccurate. This is especially true in cases with complex, serious injuries.

This is where actuaries come in. Actuaries analyze the financial costs of risk and uncertainty. They’re usually employed by the insurance companies, but their services can be valuable in Fort Lauderdale personal injury cases as well.

As noted in an academic analysis published in the Vance Journal, actuaries increasingly serve as consultants in a personal injury case, and can actually be called upon as expert witnesses. In this role, they provide information that helps quantify the monetary damages in personal injury cases. They factor not just the actual bills, but incorporate occupation-specific factors, education achievements, age, region, and the impact of one’s disability on their daily life.

Hiring an actuary early on also demonstrates to the defense that you are acting in good faith during the negotiation process. Actuaries have their own professional standards and ethics, and their conclusions about claim valuations are going to be well-supported with strong data. A compelling actuary report also shows the insurers/defense that you have a strong case that could be won in court – if they refuse to pay what you are reasonably owed during the settlement negotiation process. Also, when attorneys

So while hiring an actuary for a Fort Lauderdale personal injury case is certainly an expense, it’s one that yields substantial returns because their research can often facilitate faster, fairer resolution.

Actuaries may not be required for every case, but they’re often beneficial in serious injury cases stemming from car accidents, dangerous property, dangerous products, and medical malpractice. If you are injured in Fort Lauderdale, our dedicated personal injury lawyers provide free initial consultations.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward County.

Additional Resources:

SETTLEMENT OFFERS AND PERSONAL INJURY: IDENTIFYING THE BREAK-EVEN OFFER, Feb. 2000, By jerry Reiss and Richard Ryles, Florida Bar Journal

More Blog Entries:

“Can I File a Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Lawsuit Even If It Was Partly My Fault?”, May 6, 2024, Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

While every case is different, the most probable answer is: No.

That’s not to say it’s impossible. But the truth is, most Fort Lauderdale car accident cases never even become lawsuits – let alone make it all the way to trial.

Why is this? A few reasons include:

• The crash wasn’t that serious. Florida is a no-fault state when it comes to car accidents. All drivers are legally required to carry $10,000 in personal injury protection insurance coverage that will pay for a portion of medical bills and lost wages – regardless of who was at-fault. The whole point of this system is to reduce the number of car accident lawsuits, which have the potential to significantly clog up the courts. That doesn’t mean you can’t sue someone for negligence if you’re hurt in a Florida car accident. However, F.S. 627.737 requires plaintiffs to meet the serious injury threshold in order to do so. That means the crash resulted in one of the following: Significant and permanent loss of an important bodily function; Permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability; Significant and permanent scarring or disfigurement; Death. But even without the serious injury threshold, it’s unlikely that many minor Florida car accident cases would go to trial because it wouldn’t be cost effective. Unless the financial compensation at stake is fairly high, going to the expense and trouble of a trial would make little sense.
• There may not be much in dispute. With many car accidents, it’s often clear who was primarily at-fault. Not always, of course, but if someone runs a red light or rear-ends another car or makes an abrupt lane change, liability for that crash is fairly easy to determine. Lawsuits – and trials – are more of a last resort. Claimants start by filing the insurance claim. You only sue when key issues – such as liability or the amount of damages – are disputed (usually by way of the insurance company refusing to pay what the claimant says they’re owed). Even if one party was clearly in the wrong, the defending insurer may argue the plaintiff was still partially responsible. This is called comparative fault. In Florida, F.S. 768.81 was recently amended to establish a system of modified comparative fault with a 51 percent bar. That means if you’re injured and you were partly at-fault for the crash, you can still collect damages from the other at-fault party – but only proportionate to their own liability. It’s a means of reducing the amount of money the insurer has to pay. If you’re more than 50 percent responsible for the crash, you can’t collect anything at all. If the question of comparative fault is fiercely contested, that can be one reason for litigation. Sometimes cases go to trial solely to determine how much money the plaintiff should receive. But often, an experienced injury lawyer can negotiate a fair payout without needing to resort to a lawsuit.
• Litigation – and especially trial – is expensive. Lawsuits – and especially trials – are costly. Many courts are backlogged, sometimes years. Pretty much every party involved wants to avoid trial if they can. The longer the case drags on, the more the bills pile up – medical invoices, attorney’s fees, expert witnesses, court fees, etc. Plus, both sides lose a degree of power by handing the case over to the discretion of the judge. Sometimes there’s no avoiding that – and it can turn out well for the plaintiff. But usually, both parties can reach a more mutually agreeable, cost-effective resolution if they can negotiate a fair settlement on their own – out-of-court. Ensuring that you DO get a fair settlement, though, requires the assistance of a Fort Lauderdale injury lawyer. The more serious the injuries you sustained, the more imperative it is to hire a lawyer to protect your rights and best interests. If that means a trial – so be it, and you should hire a lawyer who’s prepared for that possibility. However, if they can successfully negotiate a fair settlement without litigation, that’s often to your benefit.
• There’s no case for punitive damages. For the most part, damages awarded in Florida crash cases are compensatory. That means the person injured by another’s negligence is being compensated for the harm caused. Crash victims can claim compensatory damages for things like property loss, medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, emotional trauma, loss of consortium, etc. It’s only in rare situations that a plaintiff can sue punitive damages. Such damages compensate the claimant – but the intention is actually to punish the defendant for particularly egregious behavior, such as gross negligence or intentional misconduct. As noted in F.S. 768.72, you cannot pursue punitive damages in a Florida injury lawsuit without permission from the judge. The only time this really comes up in crash cases is when the other driver was impaired. The Florida Supreme Court particularly singled out DUI cases as uniquely qualified for punitive damages in the 1976 case of Ingram v. Pettit.

If you have been injured in a Fort Lauderdale car accident and aren’t sure whether you need a lawyer, we can help answer your questions in a free initial consultation. We’ll offer a frank assessment of the viability and value of a potential case based on the initial facts, and provide you with insight to help you make an informed decision about your next steps.

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

Additional Resources:

Ingram v. Pettit, Dec. 9, 1976, Florida Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Will a Pre-Existing Injury Kill Your Fort Lauderdale Injury Claim? June 10, 2023, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

The first question is whether the accident at issue has anything at all to do with your existing injuries. If your pre-existing injury involves range-of-motion issues with your wrist but the more recent accident primarily impacted your neck and back, the old injury will probably be a non-issue for purposes of your new claim. That’s not to say it won’t come up at all. It’s important to be forthright with your medical providers as well as your lawyer, to ensure it’s all fully-documented and there are no surprises.

If the new injury does happen to involve the same area of the body where you were hurt before, the next question will be: “To what extent did the new injury exacerbate your pre-existing injury?”

Aggravation of a pre-existing injury is compensable under Florida law. This has been precedent for well over a century. (See the 1908 Florida Supreme Court case of Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Dees. In that matter, the court ruled “…to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, and [the plaintiff] was at the time the injuries were received suffering from some disease or illness… such [plaintiff’s] previous infirmity will not excuse the defendant from answering in damages to the full extent of injuries caused by such negligence…”)

But that doesn’t mean the defense won’t make it easy. When pre-existing injuries or illnesses are a factor in a Fort Lauderdale injury claim, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (person who is injured) to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury was either caused or aggravated by the defendant’s negligent act. This must be properly pleaded – and supported by evidence – in the special damages part of a Florida civil lawsuit. Your attorney has to clearly spell out:

• Exactly what the pre-existing condition is.
• The extent to which it impacted your life/well-being prior to the accident.
• How the new accident caused that condition to be worsened.
• The degree to which this exacerbation of your injury has degraded your physical, mental, and emotional well-being.

When there’s a pre-existing injury involved, it will not be assumed that the new accident caused it to worsen. That fact must be expressly stated and supported.

A recent case before Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal underscored what can happen in a case with pre-existing injuries when such facts are not adequately supported by evidence. The case was State Farm v. Davis, and it involved a car accident a few years ago. The at-fault driver was not adequately insured, so plaintiff was pursuing action against her own UM/UIM auto insurance carrier.

The insurer had no issue conceding the other driver was at-fault. The problem was that the plaintiff had been seeing a chiropractor for more than a dozen years prior to the crash for neck and back issues. In the six years prior to the crash at issue, she’d visited this doctor nearly 50 times for pain in her neck and lower back. In fact, she’d seen him for this issue just a few days before the crash. ‘

In the crash, she reportedly further injured her neck and back. Her chiropractor would later testify that the injuries she suffered in the crash were not the same as what he’d been treating her for. An orthopedic surgeon to whom she was referred post-crash would later testify that she’d suffered injuries specific to the crash. Two herniated discs would require additional surgery. However, she failed to present medical expert witness testimony that her pre-existing condition had in fact been aggravated by the crash. Further, she didn’t include in her injury lawsuit complaint any claim for any special damages for aggravation of her pre-existing injuries. There was no mention at all of pre-existing conditions in her claim, so she couldn’t go back and argue that they’d been aggravated. Although she initially won her case, it was reversed on appeal for this reason and remanded for a whole new trial.

We do have sympathy for this plaintiff because she likely thought that because the same general region of the body was injured that the court would only naturally recognize that the accident made matters worse for her existing condition. But again, that can’t be assumed because it’s not necessarily the case. It has to be proven.

The takeaway here is that if you have an existing injury and are injured again by someone else’s negligence, you need to make sure your Fort Lauderdale injury lawyer is fully aware of this. Be willing to answer questions and provide medical documentation of your prior injury. While we recognize it can be painful to dredge up the past, it’s important if you want to win the case that’s pending.

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

Additional Resources:

State Farm v. Davis, March 25, 2022, Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal

More Blog Entries:

How Likely is a Default Judgment in My Broward Personal Injury Claim? March 10, 2023, Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Let’s start with the fact that with very few exceptions, seat belts are required by Florida law for all drivers and passengers in motor vehicles.

Florida’s no-fault car insurance law holds that all vehicle owners must carry personal injury protection (PIP) coverage that provides up to $10,000 in compensation for any insureds injured in a crash with that vehicle – regardless of who was at-fault in causing the crash. An injured person can step outside the state’s no-fault PIP system and pursue a claim for additional monetary damages against any at-fault parties IF their injuries meet the serious injury threshold. As set forth in F.S. 627.737, they must prove their injuries – caused by the crash for which the defendant is responsible – resulted in significant/permanent loss of a bodily function, permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability, significant/permanent scarring/disfigurement or death.

It’s worth noting that Florida is recognized as a pure comparative fault state when it comes to negligence claims. Per F.S. 768.81, that means each person/entity can only be held legally responsible to pay for the damages they caused. So for example, if one suffers $100,000 in damages and Defendant A is responsible for 40 percent and Defendant B is responsible for 60 percent, Defendant A will be ordered to pay $40,000 and Defendant B will be ordered to pay $60,000.

But what if one of the people responsible for a plaintiff’s injuries is the plaintiff themself? That is what we call contributory negligence. By way of their own negligence, they contributed to their own injuries. So if you suffered $100,000 in damages – but are 20 percent responsible for your own injuries – the most you can expect to be awarded is $80,000.

That brings us to the seat belt defense.more

What is the Seat Belt Defense?

Because the law mandates that drivers and passengers wear seat belts, and because it’s well-established that failure to do so can significantly exacerbate the injuries one sustains in a Florida car accident, failure to wear one can be grounds to assert contributory negligence, thus reducing the total amount of financial compensation to which one is entitled. This is called the seat belt defense. It’s something that the insurance company (or the defendant, if the case proceeds to litigation) will bring up to reduce the overall damages to which the plaintiff is entitled.

The validity of the seat belt defense was affirmed in the 1996 Florida Supreme Court case of Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp. That case concerned a 1992 intersection truck accident involving a pickup truck driven by plaintiff and a service truck driven by a cleaning company employee. The injured plaintiff sued the driver/his employer/truck owner for negligence. The defense raised the issue of plaintiff’s failure to wear a seat belt as an affirmative defense. The trial court denied a defense request to instruct the jury on Florida law requiring motorists to wear seat belts. At trial, the jury found the cleaning company 100 percent liable for the crash.

Upon appeal, Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial court substantially erred in refusing to give the defense instruction on the state’s seat belt law. The court reasoned that because the seat belt violation constituted evidence of negligence, the jury should have been adequately informed of it. The Florida Supreme Court backed the appeals court, finding that failure to wear a seat belt makes a plaintiff comparatively negligent, and their recoverable damages should be proportionally reduced accordingly.

Subsequent rulings have stipulated that in order to prevail with the seat belt defense, defendants in Florida car accident cases must prove three things:

1. The plaintiff did not use a seat belt that was both available and operational.
2. This failure to use a seat belt was not reasonable, given the circumstances.
3. The failure of the plaintiff to use a seat belt either caused or contributed significantly to plaintiff’s injuries.

Defense attorneys would be responsible for outlining the extent to which not wearing a seat belt caused the plaintiff’s injuries or financial losses. For instance, one’s failure to wear a seat belt may not cause a crash – but it could contribute to the severity of a head injury, particularly if the car occupant was ejected from the vehicle (a scenario far more likely when someone isn’t wearing a seat belt).

Because the seat belt defense can significantly alter the value of your Fort Lauderdale injury case, it’s imperative you work with an experienced civil injury lawyer, experienced in identifying and presenting relevant evidence in your favor.

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

Additional Resources:

Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp., May 30, 1996, Florida Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Will PIP Cover All My Damages in a Fort Lauderdale Car Accident? May 15, 2022, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog

In a single recent year, more than 5,000 motorcyclists lost their lives while riding. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports Florida has more motorcycle fatalities than any other state – with 591 reported in a single recent year. That’s more than either California or Texas – both of which have substantially higher populations.

For survivors of motorcycle accidents and their loved ones, knowing the basic steps of a claims process following a serious crash can help ease some of the mental load that can feel insurmountable those first few days. As longtime Fort Lauderdale motorcycle accident attorneys, we can explain that these aren’t handled like your typical Florida car crash claim. There are unique considerations, and it’s worth taking a few moments to better understand them before beginning the process.

What Makes Florida Motorcycle Crashes Different From Others?

The reality is any car accident has the potential to turn your whole world on its axis. With motorcycle crashes, though, there are a few differences. Those include:

• Severity of injuries. Motorcycle operators and passengers lack the same level of protection as other motorists. Helmets aren’t required for adult motorcyclists in Florida, but even with them, riders don’t have the benefit of steel cage protective layer between them and the pavement. The severity of injuries in these cases means they tend to be inherently higher stakes.
• Motorcyclists cannot purchase personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. PIP coverage is required under Florida’s no-fault auto insurance law, extending up to $10,000 in compensation for medical expenses and lost wages, regardless of who was to blame. Without this, many motorcyclists tend to rely heavily on their own health insurance plans. But that won’t cover things like lost wages and other damages. This makes it all the more imperative to closely examine fault of all involved parties – and hold other drivers accountable. Claimants can step outside the no-fault system when they’ve meet the serious injury threshold, as spelled out in F.S. 627.737.

I’ve Been in a Motorcycle Accident – Now What?

more

The aftermath of a crash is often stressful and chaotic. But the claims process will begin at the accident scene. The first priority, though, is securing prompt medical care for any who have been seriously hurt/are in immediate danger. (Examination by a doctor is a smart idea even if you have no obvious injuries. They may crop up later, and it will be tougher to prove a causal link if you don’t seek immediate medical attention.) If the police have not been contacted, that’s the next step. Remain on the scene – even if the other driver has fled. Document as much as possible – take photos, get the names/contact information of any witnesses, write down your own recollection.

Also, it is never too early to contact an injury lawyer. If you’re a spouse or parent, you may take this initiative on behalf of someone who is incapacitated as a result of the crash. This will help ensure you’re doing everything by the book, preserving the best possible chance at full and fair compensation.

The next step is to file the insurance claim. But while Florida no-fault crash claims can often be fairly easily resolved by filing a claim with one’s own insurer, motorcycle accident claims are likely to be a bit trickier. That’s because you’ve got to establish fault in order to collect from the other driver’s insurer. Insurance companies are not often quick to concede this point, if they can avoid it. Working with an injury attorney helps ensure you’re following all the proper steps and that you have the necessary evidence to (hopefully) avoid a drawn-out process that could entail litigation. If/when you do talk to the insurer, do not try to explain the accident, assign blame, admit any guilt/wrong=doing or discuss the details of your injuries. Some information will need to be provided to the insurer, but it’s best to strictly stick to the facts. Let your attorney do this, if you can help it.

Next, the insurance company may offer you a settlement – part for property damage and part for bodily injury. If the injuries sustained were serious, it’s wise to have an attorney look over the terms before signing anything. Once you sign this document, you may be forfeiting your right to pursue any further claims. You won’t be allowed to go back and try to negotiate for a higher settlement. That’s why this part is important.

If the insurer doesn’t agree to pay/or you decline the offer as unreasonable, the case may proceed to litigation (a lawsuit). This decision should only be made after careful review of the facts by your attorney. From there, settlement negotiations may continue all the way up until just before a verdict.

You generally have four years from the date of a crash to pursue a personal injury claim and two years in which to pursue a claim for wrongful death. Other factors could impact that timeline, so it’s best to talk to an injury lawyer if you have any questions.

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

Additional Resources:

Motorcycles, Traffic Safety Facts, September 2021, NHTSA

More Blog Entries:

Why Are There So Many Bicycle Accidents in South Florida? Feb. 15, 2022, Fort Lauderdale Motorcycle Accident Lawyer Blog

In short, the 3rd DCA held yes, they could – or at least part of it.

It comes down to whether the duties a defendant owed to the plaintiff were non-delegable, meaning they can’t be pawned off on another person or entity by contract.

What is joint and several liability?

Joint and several liability is a legal doctrine that allows those who have been injured by another’s negligence to fully recover those damages where full recovery might otherwise be unavailable. Typically, everyone in a Florida injury case is responsible for his or her own portion of damages. That means if there are three defendants, each deemed 33 percent responsible, each should only have to pay their own 33 percent share of the plaintiff’s total damages. But sometimes, at-fault parties don’t have the means to cover damages. Joint and several liability allows a plaintiff to hold one defendant responsible to cover another’s share of the damages.

However, as our Fort Lauderdale injury lawyers can explain, the Florida legislature abolished joint and several liability in Florida in 2006. The push to do so began at least in part with the 1987 Florida Supreme Court ruling in Walt Disney World v. Wood. In that case, plaintiff was injured at a grand prix attraction at the park when her fiance rammed from the rear the vehicle she’d been driving. She filed a lawsuit against Disney, which in turn sought contribution from the fiance. Jurors determined plaintiff was 14 percent comparatively at-fault, her fiance was 85 percent at-fault and Disney was 1 percent at-fault. Her total damages were assessed at $75,000. The court ruled that because of the doctrine of joint and several liability, Disney could be responsible for 86 percent of the damages. Disney appealed, but the verdict was affirmed.

The Florida statute on joint and several liability has been modified numerous times. Today, for the most part, a defendant who is liable is only going to pay his or her own portion of damages. But there are sometimes exceptions. This is what we saw recently in the case of Walters v. Beach Club Villas Condominium, Inc.

Joint Liability in Florida Premises Liability Lawsuit

In the Walters case, plaintiff attended a party hosted by friends who were owners of a beach condo. The portion of the boat dock directly behind her friends’ home was in good condition, but an adjacent portion was not. Plaintiff ended up stepping on a defective portion of the dock, falling and becoming seriously injured.

She sued the property owners, the condo complex and the repair company for premises liability.

In general, property owners/occupiers owe invitees the duty of using reasonable care in maintaining the property in reasonably safe condition and to warn of latent/concealed dangers that are or should be known to the owner that aren’t known to the invitee or cannot be discovered just by exercising due care. These duties are “non-delegable,” meaning one who owes such a duty can’t absolve themselves of it by contracting it out to another party. The condo complex’s duty went even further per the club’s own internal declarations, which adopted significant portions of the Florida Condominium Act, requiring (in part) that condo associations keep up common areas – and the dock was specifically listed as a common area. That declaration, the trial court held, imposed an additional duty on the condo complex – one that couldn’t be delegated out to any other party.

The condo complex argued the fault was on the party hosts for failing to warn plaintiff of the unsafe condition of the dock, contributing to her fall and personal injuries. The dock repair company alleged comparative fault, as well as third parties.

Jurors returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor, finding the beach club 15 percent liable, the dock repair company 25 percent liable and the party hosts 50 percent liable. She herself was deemed 10 percent at-fault. The court, however, declined to impose joint and several liability on the condo complex.

The appellate court reversed with respect to the contractor, but not the party hosts. The court cited several instances of case law wherein the a property owner can be held jointly and severally liable for the negligence attributed to a contractor when the property owner owes a non-delegable duty of care to the plaintiff – even if the contractor was deemed partially or wholly at-fault.

The fact that the condo owner hired a contractor to repair the dock didn’t negate its own nondelegable duty to keep the property in reasonably good condition. Thus, they could be held jointly and severally liable for the contractor’s portion of damages. However, the condo owner would not be liable for the hosts’ portion because they owed a separate duty to warn plaintiff of the possible danger. That makes the condo complex owner and the party hosts joint tortfeasors, but the condo complex couldn’t be held liable for their damages.

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

Additional Resources:

Walters v. Beach Club Villas Condominium, Inc., Feb. 26, 2020, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal

More Blog Entries:

When Do I Need a Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer? June 15, 2020, Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog

Plaintiff and her spouse sued both the property owner and the state. Against the property owner, plaintiffs alleged there was negligence in the failure to inspect, trim and remove the dead/ diseased tree. As far as the state, plaintiff alleged negligence by Department of Transportation workers for a failure to properly maintain trees along that road or warn drivers of the dangerous along that highway.

Defendant property owner asked to be allowed to introduce trial evidence of the state’s alleged negligence, and also requested a jury instruction on the apportionment of liability for damages between property owner and the state. Plaintiff indicated that while there was nothing preventing the jury from hearing trial evidence tending to show the state was possibly liable for her injuries, but she objected insofar as the jury should not be allowed to apportion fault against the state. (The state could not be ultimately joined in this action because sovereign immunity laws prevented her from prevailing in such action.) more

Trial court ruled that while evidence of the state’s negligence would be admissible, the jury wouldn’t be instructed on apportioning liability between the state and defendant property owner.

Defendant property owner appealed, and the appellate court reversed. Justices reasoned existing law indicated juries should be given the option to apportion fault between the property owner and the state for plaintiff’s personal injuries. A dissenting justice did not object to evidence presented that would show state’s wrongdoing. However, the court held that the state would have an “empty chair in the courtroom,” being allowed neither to appear or defend itself, which could result in a skewed result.

Plaintiffs appealed the majority ruling, and the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in that state) reversed. The court noted that this could result in defendants being placed in a position of having to seek recovery of damages against the state in the court of claims (in cases where a defendant believes it has been held liable for what was actually the state’s negligent conduct). However, this burden is not the same magnitude of burden remedied by the statute on which the previous court relied, which was to help deep-pocketed defendants avoid having to go after insolvent tortfeasors assessed a greater portion of liability for an injury. As justices noted, the state is not insolvent and will always have sufficient resources to satisfy whatever judgment is obtained against it.

Plaintiffs whose injuries may have been caused by the negligence of multiple parties should seek the advice of an experienced injury lawyer who can help determine the best course of action to maximize recovery from each defendant.

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

Additional Resources:

Artibee v. Home Place Corp., Feb. 14, 2017, New York Court of Appeals

More Blog Entries:

Poor Road Design, Inadequate Signage Blamed in Car Accident, Feb. 19, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog

Although that sounds like a lot, it’s actually peanuts, given the scope of the fraud in comparison to what other companies have paid for similar offenses. For example, Volkswagon was required to pay $21 billion over an emissions-cheating scandal. Although penalties will include $125 million to consumers, the judge could have imposed as much as $1.5 billion. However, doing so likely would have put the auto maker out of business.

Still, that might yet be on the horizon. In Miami, a U.S. District Judge said the settlement means the pending multi-district litigation can move forward, most likely via settlements before trial.more

The personal injury lawsuits allege injuries, wrongful death and property damage against Takata and numerous vehicle manufacturers who installed Takata airbags. U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno said he is eager to get the cases resolved because litigation on this scale has a tendency to drag on. This admission from Takata may speed the process, and he’s pressing both sides to begin mediation. It’s unlikely all will be resolved in that manner, so he’s hoping the bellwether cases will go to trial no later than early 2018.

The reason the settlement – and Takata’s admission of wrongdoing to the DOJ – matter in the pending civil cases is that the automaker can no longer vehemently deny some of the things it previously was.

However, the party most excited about this admission are the automakers. They believe it tends to show the auto manufacturers were victims in this as well. Because they were also deceived, they contend, they should not face liability. Manufacturers were unaware of the company’s fraud and didn’t know enough about the issue to mislead consumers, they insist.

Attorneys for lead plaintiffs call this argument “ludicrous,” pointing out that discovery so far has shown automakers were aware of the dangers of the chemical compound in the airbags, but continued to purchase them anyway because they were inexpensive compared to the alternative models. For example, by the time Honda initiated its first national recall three years ago, the company had already received 77 reports of ruptured airbags, in some cases resulting in death and serious personal injury.

These devices, you may recall, contain a chemical compound that was later found to be unstable, particularly when exposed to extended periods of heat (that’s why so many of these cases happened in the South). When the compounds ruptured, they expelled shrapnel at explosive rates directly into the faces and necks of drivers and passengers – sometimes with deadly outcomes.

Another effect the settlement could have on the multi-district litigation is that some plaintiffs could opt instead to accept payment from that $125 million DOJ settlement in exchange for dropping their lawsuits.

Meanwhile, automakers who purchased the airbags were awarded $850 million in the settlement. It’s been suggested that they use that money to settle existing claims of economic loss from some 40 million consumers whose vehicles lost value because of defective airbags.

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

Additional Resources:

Miami Judge Aims to Advance Air Bag Litigation in Wake of Takata’s Guilty Plea, March 1, 2017, By Celia Ampel, Daily Business Review

More Blog Entries:

Poor Road Design, Inadequate Signage Blamed in Car Accident, Feb. 19, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog

Plaintiff went to the doctor for repair of a hernia. When he made his first appointment with the surgeon, he was handed a huge stack of paperwork to sign, which defendant doctor’s office routinely presents to new patients, along with other documents, prior to the first time the doctor meets with the patient. Included in that stack of papers was a legal document, known as an arbitration agreement, in which plaintiff signed away his right to have any future disputes with the doctor – including those pertaining to medical malpractice – resolved by a court of law. Instead, any disputes would be handled through a private arbitration firm.

This practice has become increasingly common, and the Florida Supreme Court encountered this very issue with regard to medical malpractice claims in a 2013 case – and reached a very similar conclusion.

In the Florida case, a man sought treatment from defendant doctor. In a four-page financial agreement he signed prior to surgery, there was a short provision that he initialed that was an arbitration agreement. It indicated that any claim of negligence relating to diagnosis, treatment or care of patient had to be resolved by arbitration. Plaintiff signed this. He then underwent surgery, during which the surgeon reportedly lacerated a vein during surgery. However, this was not revealed to plaintiff following the procedure and he was sent home. Two days later, he was rushed to the emergency room for severe pain. It was there a CT scan revealed the damage. The man remained hospitalized until his death.

When his wife filed a medical malpractice lawsuit on her late husband’s behalf, the doctor’s office sought to enforce the arbitration agreement, arguing that it was binding. Although the trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, it noted “substantial reservations.” The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, but the state supreme court reversed. In its ruling, the court held that the agreement was void as to public policy.

The court held that under the Medical Malpractice Act provision that provides for a voluntary binding arbitration agreement in medical malpractice claims, the key word here is “voluntary.” Arbitration agreements can provide incentives for both claimants and defendants by reducing attorney’s fees, litigation costs and delays. However, the court ruled in this case that the the “substantial incentive” for plaintiff in that case was removed because the agreement wasn’t voluntary, and it also removed the concession of liability on the part of the provider. Without any incentives to claimant, the agreement was nothing more than an attempt to limit the injured’s rights and circumvent the proper remedies.

In the more recent North Carolina case, that agreement too was void against public policy. Plaintiff admitted to signing the agreement, even though he hadn’t read it, but the court held that by that point, he had placed trust in his doctor. He considered the paperwork a formality. The arbitration agreement was given to him in a stack of other medical paperwork that was necessary to complete before treatment and there was no explanation given to him by office staffers that this was a special agreement that would require him to forfeit certain legal rights. Further, the agreement doesn’t indicate that by signing it, the patient waives his or her right to a trial. There is nowhere in the agreement that the words, “judge,” “jury” or “trial” appear, and it does not indicate plaintiff can seek counsel from a lawyer before signing it.

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

Additional Resources:

King v. Bryant, Jan. 27, 2017, North Carolina Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

NHTSA: V2V Technology Could Prevent Thousands of Car Accidents, Jan. 7, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

The Sun Sentinel reports the crossing at Federal Highway and Northeast First Street will be updated over the next several months to include:

• A sign for motorists on Federal Highway, notifying them of the upcoming intersection;
• A sign for motorists on Northeast First Street, to notify them cross traffic won’t stop;
• Larger stop signs for those traveling both directions on Northeast First Street;
• Relocation of a garbage can and bench that reportedly obstruct motorists’ views.

more

The site was where an 82-year-old Uber driver was killed trying to cross Federal Highway in his sport utility vehicle. As he did so, a 60-year-old in a Lamborghini slammed into him, according to police. The sports car driver, a mulitmillionaire who owns a fitness club chain, had reportedly spent the afternoon drinking in downtown Delray Beach with his girlfriend. Authorities have cited alcohol and speed as possible factors in the crash, though the other driver has not been cited as of this writing. The police investigation is ongoing.

A representative for the city said the crash, along with previous complaints regarding obstructed views at the intersection, prompted traffic engineers to take a closer look at whether additional improvements were necessary. Several residents had proposed installing a traffic light. However, this is considered a “big-ticket” item, and officials weren’t eager to install it if it wasn’t necessary. The city spokesman said that while this accident was a tragedy, driver misbehavior – such as drinking and speeding – can’t be controlled with “signs and lights.”

That may be true to an extent. However, our Fort Lauderdale injury lawyers know that speed and alcohol use are both foreseeable incidents on the roadway. In fact, both occur each and every day, perpetuated by drivers across the country. Traffic engineers can’t prevent all possible outcomes, but they can anticipate drivers being irresponsible and plan certain features accordingly. Many traffic-calming measures exist to slow speeders, including:

• Vertical Deflection (i.e., “speed bumps”);
• Horizontal Deflection (i.e., traffic circles and roundabouts);
• Horizontal Narrowing (neckdowns, center islands, chokers);
• Posting warning signs and signals (i.e., “SLOW,” lowered speed limits, flashing strobe lights, hazards).

Interestingly, signs that warn of children in the area aren’t known effectively reduce driver speeds.

This is not to say that cities MUST put these measures in place everywhere. However, the failure to do so at problem intersections or stretches of road could result in a finding of liability.

Here, the city has promised that the improvements that are moving forward will be completed rather quickly, considering they are not expensive or time-consuming to install. The best estimate for completion date is January 2017. Those changes will reportedly be reviewed every six months.

Meanwhile, the wife of the Uber driver has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Lamborghini driver, seeking compensation for medical bills, funeral expenses and mental pain and anguish.

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

Additional Resources:

No traffic light needed at intersection of Delray Beach fatal crash, study shows, Nov. 16, 2016, By Adam Sacasa, The Sun-Sentinel

More Blog Entries:

Motorcycle Riders in Construction Zones Face Hazards, Nov. 11, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Wrongful Death Lawyer Blog

The reality is that school bus accidents – especially fatal ones – aren’t all that common. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that between 20004 and 2013, there were 1,214 school-transportation related fatal crashes. Approximately 134 people die in school vehicle-related crashes and about 8 percent of those are actually on the bus. About one-fifth are pedestrians and bicyclists. Most are people in other vehicles.

In the recent Florida case of Davis v. Baez, plaintiff was a student pedestrian who was injured when she was struck by another vehicle while crossing a darkened, busy street early one morning to get to her bus stop. Normally, the school bus driver wouldn’t be liable in a case like this, but the driver – allegedly and against the school district’s policy – instructed students at this particular stop to cross the street and be waiting for him at the bus stop on the east side of the street when he arrived. He told them if they didn’t cross before he got there, he wouldn’t stop to pick them up. However, school policy required that the students be allowed to wait on the east side of the street until the bus arrived, at which time the driver would extend his flashing stop sign to halt traffic in both directions so students could cross safely to the stop.

Plaintiff was an 18-year-old student, a senior at Sunset Senior High in Miami-Dade. The crash occurred around 5:50 a.m., and it was still dark out. She and her brother were assigned to that stop. Her brother had just barely crossed safely and watched on as his sister was hit. Plaintiff suffered serious personal injuries as a result of the accident.

The student took legal action against both the school board and the bus driver for not instructing her and her brother to wait on the west side of the road until the bus arrived at the designated stop, halted traffic and activated the bus’s red flashing lights and “STOP” arm so the two could safely cross.

The school district and the driver asserted sovereign immunity and the trial court granted the district summary judgment.

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the claim against the school board, but that was affirmed.

She later appealed only the claim against the driver individually. The driver affirmed in his deposition that he had told plaintiff and her brother to be waiting on the east side of the street and that if they weren’t already there, he wouldn’t wait for them to cross so he could pick them up. Further, the bus route manager for the district testified that not only were children allowed to wait on the west side of the street, but that it was proper procedure for them to do so.

F.S. 768.28(9)(a) extends sovereign immunity protection to employees of a government agency so long as the worker was acting in the course and scope of his or her employment or function, unless the act was in bad faith or malicious or exhibited wanton and willful disregard for human safety.

In this case, according to the Third District Court of Appeals, there was a genuine dispute of fact as to whether, by voluntarily requiring the students to cross the street before the bus arrived, he created a foreseeable zone of risk and thus owed a duty to plaintiff and was not shielded by sovereign immunity laws. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

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

Additional Resources:

Davis v. Baez, Nov. 9, 2016, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal

More Blog Entries:

Florida Medical Malpractice Damage Caps Again Struck Down on Appeal, Nov. 25, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney 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

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

The claim has to be properly stated, served and filed. All the elements have to be there – on time – or else you risk forfeiting your right to assert damages, perhaps forever.

This was the unfortunate outcome for plaintiff in Sorenson v. Batchfelder, recently before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Although this is an out-of-state case, the same general principles apply.

According to court records, plaintiff suffered personal injury and property damage as a result of a traffic accident allegedly caused by a state employee.

The state worker was operating a state vehicle and was on-the-job as part of his duties with the Department of Administration. The state worker had been rear-ended by another vehicle, causing him to rear-end plaintiff’s vehicle.

While the driver of that first vehicle certainly could be held to account for those actions, the state worker in this situation could also be held liable for following plaintiff to closely.

In seeking to file her personal injury lawsuit, she served the notice of claim on the attorney general by personal service at the AG’s main office in the state capitol.

Personal service was accepted by the state employee who acknowledged its receipt and it was then forwarded to the attorney general’s personal office at a different location. There, it was processed, endorsed by another state worker and then returned to plaintiff’s attorney’s office.

Following this, the state’s office of risk management issued a check for just $242 for property damage, indicating this was not an admission of liability.

Two years later, plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the state worker, who responded with a motion to dismiss for improper service of notice of claim. He argued plaintiff had not satisfied the state law requirement mandating plaintiff’s to provide service by certified mail. Because she instead use personal service, she didn’t comply with the statute, he alleged.

The trial court disagreed with defendant and denied his motion to dismiss because the attorney general had received the notice of claim. The court ruled this was all that was required.

On appeal, however, the appellate court reversed. The appeals court noted the statute clearly says service must be accomplished by certified mail and that by personally serving the notice, she failed to strictly comply with the statute. Because the statute of limitations had already run on the claim, she no longer had time to proper serve the claim and refile the lawsuit.

Plaintiff’s only recourse at that point was to appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which granted review.

The state high court affirmed, holding that the language of the statute had a clear, plain meaning. That means it is unambiguous and easy to understand.

Plaintiff didn’t dispute the language or meaning of the statute. She did argue, however, that her actions fulfilled the intention of the statute by providing actual notice to the attorney general’s office. Further, she argued that to regard her personal service as not in compliance with the statute would have an absurd result – i.e., the dismissal of her otherwise viable claim.

However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that strict compliance with the literal adherence to the words was necessary in this case, and affirmed the appellate court’s decision to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss.

An experienced injury lawyer can help ensure that you don’t fall into these kinds of procedural traps. Only partial compliance with procedural statutes in injury cases is often not good enough.

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

Additional Resources:

Sorenson v. Batchfelder, May 12, 2016, Wisconsin Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Florida Construction Accident Investigated, April 25, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Blog

Researchers with the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, in a new paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that Americans are in some way distracted more than 50 percent of the time when they are behind the wheel. Of all the crashes the study authors observed, almost 70 percent involved some type of “observable” distraction. That means the actual number is probably even higher, as humans can be easily distracted even by their own thoughts.

But it gets worse: The U.S. used to be one of the safest place for motorists. Prior to the early aughts, we had fewer traffic deaths per mile traveled than most other developed countries. Today, we rank 17th out of 29.

The reason doesn’t take a rocket scientist. The primary culprit, researchers say, is the cell phone.

Distraction has always existed among drivers, of course. But now, it has become nearly impossible for some people to resist. The vibration of an incoming call or the tone of a text or social media alert practically demands a response. But at what cost?

For this study, which was funded by the U.S. government and unprecedented in scope, tracked more than 3,500 drivers, who agreed to allow researchers to affix cameras, sensors and radar on their vehicles. So these were even people who knew they were being watched every time they got in their vehicle for a full three years.

In all, study authors analyzed not only what happened just before a crash, but also at all points during each trip. In total, they collected more than 35 million miles of data.

When they JUST looked at cell phone use behind the wheel, they discovered:

• Drivers actually dialing a phone 0.14 percent of the time behind the wheel. This activity alone increased the risk of a crash by 12 times compared to drivers who were alert, sober and attentive.
• Drivers texting 1.91 percent of the time.These drivers were six times more likely to crash while engaging in this activity.
• Drivers talking on the phone 3.24 percent of the time. Doing so doubled the risk of a crash.
• Reaching for a cell phone numerous times during a trip, increasing their accident risk by five times.

But cell phones apparently weren’t the only risk. Among the other distractions observed:

• Talking with a teen or adult passenger – 14.6 percent of the time, increasing the crash risk factor by 1.4 times. (This is interesting because previously, the presence of an adult passenger was believed to have a positive effect on driving; these results suggest that’s not the case.)
• Driving while emotional. Although sadness/ crying/ emotional agitation was observed just 0.2 percent of the time, it increased the crash risk by an astonishing 1,000 percent.

Drivers were also seen applying makeup, eating and drinking non-alcoholic drinks. However, these did not seem to be as much of a risk as previously believed.

One of those that was not so much of a surprise was the risk of alcohol and drug impairment. Although intoxication was observed just 0.1 percent of the time (and keep in mind – this was only based on what researchers could observe), it increased the risk of a crash by 40 times.

Ultimately, what researchers concluded is that 4 million of the 11 million crashes that happen in the U.S. every year could be avoided if drivers eliminated potential distractions.

If you have been injured in a car accident caused by a distracted driver, we can help.

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

Additional Resources:

U.S. Drivers are Distracted More Than Half the Time They are Behind The Wheel, March 8, 2016, By Aarian Marshall, CityLab.com

More Blog Entries:

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

No one was seriously injured, but as evidenced by news reports, these kinds of incidents aren’t all that common. If someone could miss a large yellow bus looming in front of them, it stands to reason smaller vehicles stopped in traffic are at higher risk. AAA reports distracted driving accounts for between a quarter and half of all crashes, and likely an even larger chunk of rear-end crashes.

Drivers simply aren’t paying attention to what’s happening in front of them. In fact, a recent Virginia Tech study, “Second Strategic Highway Research Program Naturalistic Driving Study,” found after analyzing three years’ worth of footage that 75 percent of crashes are due to driver error and people are engaged in distracted behavior 68 percent of the time they are behind the wheel.

Now, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) reports technology may present at least a partial solution. A new study has indicated that vehicles that are equipped with front crash prevention technology are far less likely to rear-end other cars than those without this feature.

This is the first known study to analyze the effects of this technology against police-reported crash statistics.

The technology is commonly referred to as “automatic braking.” it’s a system that senses an imminent crash with another vehicle, person or obstacle. In response to this danger, the vehicle will apply the brakes without any driver input whatsoever. The feature utilizes radar, video, infrared, ultrasonic or other technologies.

In some systems, there is no actual braking but there is an audible warning issued when a crash is impending. This gives the driver a few more seconds to react before a crash. Those seconds can make a huge difference.

Researchers found that both forms of the technology were extremely helpful in reducing not only the number of crashes but the severity of injuries.

The audible warning system alone slashed car accidents by 23 percent. Meanwhile, the full auto braking system lowered the number of rear-end crashes by, on average, 40 percent.

Study authors, who looked at data from 2013, opined that if autobrake systems had been standard on every vehicle that year, there would have been 700,000 fewer police-reported rear-end collisions. That would amount to 13 percent fewer crashes overall.

The chief research officer of the study said this represents a major step forward in the quest for safer roads.

And that couldn’t come at a better time. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports in the first six months of 2015, traffic deaths were up 9.3 percent over the first nine months of 2014. Projected fatality totals are expected in the spring, but barring a huge decline in the last three months of 2015, we’re going to see the first increase in traffic deaths we’ve had in years.

Part of that is more people are driving. But behind-the-wheel distractions have increased.

Areas with the most prominent uptick include the Southeast region of the country: Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee.

And in Florida, at-fault drivers in rear-end collisions aren’t sticking around to face the consequences. The Florida Highway Patrol reports there were more than 93,000 hit-and-run crashes investigated last year across the state – up nearly 7,500 from 2014.

Although autobrake features do not come standard in 2016 cars, it may be an attractive feature to an increasing number of customers, given the proven benefits.

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

Additional Resources:

Crashes Avoided: Front crash prevention slashes police-reported rear-end crashes, Jan. 28, 2016, Status Report, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

More Blog Entries:

Florida Bill Seeks End to Traffic Crash Drownings, Feb. 23, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Blog

Now, they’re in the running to work alongside software engineers with MIT to improve their app before it goes on the market. They’ll also receive $20,000 from the Verizon Foundation. It was one of 1,200 submissions nationally, and this was one of eight teams chosen to compete.

The goal of the app is to slash the number of student concussions and prevent traumatic brain injuries among young athletes. It’s an issue close to home for these Fort Lauderdale students, where just last year, 1 in 5 junior and varsity football team players – 10 out of 48 – suffered a concussion-related injury.more

It would work like this: A device would be placed into each player’s helmet. When the player is struck, a message would be sent to the coach’s mobile device (smartphone, iPad, laptop, etc.). That message would inform the coach of how hard the player was hit, and provide other statistics on the level of force.

In turn, this would give the coach critical information about how best to address the situation. So even if a player initially seemed fine, the coach’s would be able to better judge how best to address the player’s medical needs.

From a personal injury lawyer standpoint, this information could also be beneficial if the coach did not take appropriate action. For example, if the force data indicated the player should be taken out of the game and examined by a health care professional – and the coach fails to do this – it could be used as concrete evidence of liability.

The hope, though, is that these sorts of missteps will be avoided entirely. We know coaches want to do right by their players. The idea is to give them the right tools to make those judgment calls easier and more precise.

Concussions are mild traumatic brain injuries that often result from having one’s head and upper body shaken violently. There is a misconception that these injuries are somehow unique or uncommon. Not so.

It’s estimated more than 50 percent of high school athletes have sustained a sports-related concussion before they even enter high school. Nearly 40 percent of college athletes have a history of multiple concussions.

Worse, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports nearly 70 percent of students with concussion symptoms don’t report it. A mobile app like this would make it harder to hide it.

Why is all of this so scary? First of all, the frontal cortex of the brain doesn’t fully develop until age 25. Damage to the brain at such a young age can be greatly detrimental to one’s development.

Post-concussion syndrome is a complex health condition that involves symptoms that last for weeks, months or even more than a year after concussion. It involves problems with dizziness, fatigue, anxiety, insomnia, irritability, headaches and emotional changes.

The Pine Crest student app could potentially help to identify these problems before they develop into something more serious. Once it’s finished, rights to the app would be fully retained by the students and available for download in Google Play.

If your child has suffered significantly as a result of a concussion or other sports-related head injury, call our Fort Lauderdale personal injury lawyers today.

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

Additional Resources:

Fort Lauderdale students win $20k grant toward concussion app, Feb. 2, 2016, By Carlos Suarez, ABC Local 10

More Blog Entries:

Uber Lawsuit Filed As Miami Considers Driver Screenings, Feb. 2, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Blog

Make sure to ask the personal injury lawyer negotiating your settlement about this possibility, and carefully read the document yourself before signing off.

The case of Gores v. Miller is a cautionary tale. This was a case recently before the South Dakota Supreme Court, but the principles are still applicable to accident victims in South Florida.more

According to court records, the case began with a car accident in which a 15-year-old girl, a passenger in a vehicle driven by another teen, was seriously injured. Her mother was the plaintiff, who initially took action against the other teen, who was driving his mother’s vehicle and who was covered under his mother’s auto insurance policy.

In a settlement agreement reached in that case, plaintiff received the $25,000 limit of the driver’s car insurance policy. She also received benefits under her own underinsured motorist coverage, and the total amount of benefits recovered was $100,000. The language of that settlement agreement specifically stated plaintiffs “forever discharged” not only the named defendant, heirs, executors, administrators and agents, but also, “all other persons, firms or corporations who might be claimed to be liable… from any and all claims, demands, damages, actions, causes of action or suits of any kind or nature whatsoever… from all injuries… which have resulted or may in the future develop from (the accident).“

Subsequent to signing this agreement, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the doctor who had treated her daughter after the crash. The emergency room physician treated lacerations on the teen’s arm. These were deep wounds, and the doctor conducted a skin graft on the girl. Treatment occurred immediately after the crash, but also continued over the next several months.

Plaintiff alleged the skin graft was not done properly. She also alleged the doctor failed to properly instruct the girl on how she was supposed to care for her wounds. Had the doctor’s standard of care been adequate, plaintiff alleged, the girl would have healed better and more quickly.

Defendant doctor denied these claims, but also filed a motion for summary judgment, on the grounds the release previously signed by plaintiff released her of any liability – even if she would have otherwise been liable.

Trial court granted that motion and plaintiff appealed.

In its review, the South Dakota Supreme Court, the court noted a release is a contract. If a contract is not ambiguous, then it’s enforceable. Further, if the language is unambiguous, then neither the subjective intent or failure to obtain full satisfaction from that settlement is going to matter.

Here, the doctor treated plaintiff’s daughter for injuries obtained in the accident. Therefore, the medical malpractice claim “arose from” the accident. Based on the language of the agreement, any liability medical malpractice on the part of the doctor in this case was discharged in the release.

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

Additional Resources:

Gores v. Miller , Feb. 3, 2016, South Dakota Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Methadone Clinic, Doctor, Settle Drugged Driving Crash Case for $8M, Feb. 6, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Blog