An example of this was seen recently in the $8.2 million Florida wrongful death lawsuit against a bridge operation company facing allegations of negligence in the death of a 79-year-old West Palm Beach bicyclist who died after plummeting from a bridge that was abruptly raised while she was in the midst of crossing it. She’d been just 10 feet away from the edge of the bridge when she fell to her death in the gap. The bridge tender at the time of the incident has been arrested and faces a single count of manslaughter by culpable negligence. (She told investigators she had gone outside to visually check that the bridge was clear before raising it, but video evidence and other testimony have thus far contradicted this, according to local news sources.)

Meanwhile, the decedent’s family filed a Florida wrongful death lawsuit against the bridge tender’s employer, a company called Florida Drawbridges, Inc. Plaintiffs in this case not only sought monetary damages for their lawsuit, but also industry-accepted safety changes to ensure something like this doesn’t happen again to another Florida family. In their filing, the family specifically stated they wanted an outcome that resulted in “change to preclude this preventable tragedy from occurring in the future.”

Ultimately, that’s what they got in addition to the $8.2 million settlement. Among the procedural changes that the defendant drawbridge company agreed to undergo:

• Subjecting all bridge tender applicants to successfully pass criminal background checks.
• To schedule recertification training with all current bridge tenders.
• To facilitate periodic audits of operations with out-of-area supervisors.
• To require all bridge tenders to watch a 23-minute video on the decedent’s life, driving home the profound price one family paid because one of its bridgetenders allegedly failed to use due caution.

The family reportedly donated a significant portion of the settlement proceeds – including the creation of an annual $30,000 scholarship that will carry on for the next three decades. As the family’s wrongful death attorney was quoted as saying, the family wanted fundamental changes to be central to this settlement agreement. “At the end of the day, we got those changes. Hopefully at the end of the day, this never happens to another family.”

Damages in Florida Wrongful Death Lawsuits

Proving wrongful death in Florida (as codified in F.S. 786.16 – 786.26) requires evidence that:more

• A death occurred.
• The defendant owed a duty of care to decedent.
• An act or omission by the defendant breached that duty of care.
• The wrongful act was the direct cause of the fatal injury to decedent.
• Financial damage resulted from the injury or death.

As our Broward wrongful death lawyers can explain, when these cases are settled or won at trial, the takeaway for the plaintiffs is referred to as “damages.” Damages can be paid for things like medical bills, lost wages, funeral costs, loss of earning potential, pain and suffering of the decedent, loss of consortium (of the decedent’s spouse or children), loss of prospective net accumulations of an estate, etc.

Survivors who may bring a wrongful death action in Florida include a decedent’s spouse, children, parents or other blood relatives or adoptive siblings. (This is not applicable for medical malpractice wrongful death cases, for which only spouses and children under age 25.)

Even though no amount of money is going to bring back a loved one, the courts quantify these damages in dollar amounts. And financial compensation is important for many families in wrongful death litigation, particularly if the decedent suffered a long illness (racking up lots of medical debt) or was a primary wage earner/caregiver within the family. But as the aforementioned case shows, wrongful death claims can also be opportunities to compel important change.

It’s important to discuss your primary goals with your wrongful death lawyer at the outset of your case.

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

Additional Resources:

F.S. 768.21, Florida Statute Wrongful Death Damages

More Blog Entries:

How Fort Lauderdale Pedestrian Accident Victims Can Obtain Compensation for Injuries, Jan. 15, 2022, Broward Wrongful Death Attorney Blog

This is what is being alleged in a wrongful death lawsuit in Ohio, where a woman and her two daughters were gunned down by her husband at a Cracker Barrel restaurant after a heated confrontation that ensued when she told him she was leaving him. The family had gone to the restaurant for a birthday dinner with their two 10-year-old girls when the events took a turn. The husband reportedly threatened to, “kill them all,” shouted an expletive while paying for the bill, accidentally dropped several shotgun shells from his pocket. According to the wrongful death lawsuit, filed by the woman’s brother, the girls’ uncle, the mother called a friend and the police and begged the manger to allow her and her daughters to hide in the restaurant’s walk-in cooler. The manager allegedly refused the request, telling her the restaurant doesn’t get involved in domestic disputes.

Her husband returned with a shotgun and killed her and her two daughters, who were hiding in the restroom. Police then shot and killed the gunman. An attorney for plaintiff alleges the woman and her daughters were left to take care of themselves in a dangerous situation. He cited the protocol that many chain restaurants and retail facilities have to deal with violent or active shooter situations, and argued that such incidents, while terrifying, are in fact foreseeable.

A judge recently denied a defense motion for summary judgement, which means the case is now slated for trial in March, if it isn’t settled first.

According to guidelines produced by the National Retail Federation, most of the time when shots are fired, the motive or cause may not be determined for hours, days or even weeks. That’s why the protocols in place serve to assist restaurants and other businesses responding to situations of shots fired in robberies, workplace violence incidents, civil unrest or other shooting incidents.

Part of appropriately responding to active shooter situations is preparing for it. That means formulating clear step-by-step after gathering input from human resources, facilities, operations, safety and training departments as well as local law enforcement and other emergency responders. The NRF notes that this includes “coordinating a hide out/ shelter in place/ escape plans.” These would be things like:

• Identifying a potential hide-out/ shelter in place location that are safe within the facility.
• Designate an evacuation meeting location and inform all employees about that, as well as at least two evacuation routes.
• Train employees to encourage customers to follow them to the evacuation area.
• Train workers not to leave the safe place until instructed to do so by law enforcement.

The NRF goes on to indicate that while a shooting incident isn’t what businesses or customers or employees expect when they go to work or are enjoying a meal or shopping, but there is historical precedent to indicate that these are situations for which businesses need to prepare. Instinctively, most people panic in this kind of situation. But when managers and employees are trained on the basics of crisis management, it can make a huge difference and potentially save lives. Active shooter situations aren’t necessarily preventable in every case, but losses can be minimized by following pre-set response guidelines.

Wrongful death lawsuits may be explored in cases where businesses failed to develop or follow certain crisis responses to emergency situations.

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

Additional Resources:

Lawsuit against Cracker Barrel in 2012 domestic shooting can go forward, judge rules, Dec. 30, 2016, By Cory Shaffer, Cleveland.com

More Blog Entries:

Family Awarded $26M for Teen’s Wrongful Death on Tour Bus, Dec. 26, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Wrongful Death Lawyer Blog

Now, following a jury trial that named the girl’s parents, the tour bus company and the driver, his parents have been awarded $26 million in damages. It’s believed to be the largest amount ever awarded in California for the wrongful death of a minor. The bus company was assigned 70 percent of the blame. The girl’s parents shouldered 25 percent of the blame. Zisette, meanwhile, was just 5 percent negligent for his own death.

His parents say the money is not going to bring their son back. However, they intend to use it to help press for legislation that will help change the laws and improve bus safety, which the parents say his sorely lacking. They don’t want another child to suffer the same kind of wrongful death as their beloved son, whom they called “exuberant” and “full of joy.” more

According to The Daily Breeze, the open-air bus was traveling along the highway when the teen struck his head on the pedestrian bridge. His mother pointed out how unsafe it was, even to an untrained onlooker. “It was a bunch of teens standing up, flying down the freeway,” she said.

Plaintiffs alleged their son’s wrongful death was the fault of the adults on board – the bus driver, a tour guide and the girl’s parents. They alleged those individuals failed to take safety precautions to protect the 35 teens on board. No one told them to sit down. No one told them to wear their seat belts. Meanwhile, the girl’s parents provided the teens with vodka. Bus employees allowed the teens top drink and dance on the upper deck of the bus, even as it was moving down the freeway.

Defendants, meanwhile, tried to foist the blame onto the underage victim. They alleged he drank three beers before he ever boarded the bus, and then brought with him a bottle of vodka and a bottle of whiskey. They further alleged he stood high on an 18-inch riser on the bus.

Prior to the party, the teens were texting back and forth about all the alcohol they were going to bring to drink during the five-hour trip.

The victim’s mother said she knew the teens were taking a tour of Hollywood on the bus, but had no other information. The girl’s parents, meanwhile, had reportedly purchased six flasks of vodka and gave them to their daughter, instructing her to share.

None of the teens aboard testified to having seen decedent drinking, but he had a blood-alcohol level of 0.118, which is higher than the legal limit of intoxication of 0.08. For a minor who was just 16, his blood-alcohol concentration should have been zero.

At the time of the incident, the girl’s parents, the driver and the tour guide were all on the lower level of the bus. The bus stood 13.3 feet tall. The overpass was 15.1 inches. Decedent stood 5 feet, 11 inches, and he was standing on an 18-inch riser. The bus could technically move under overpasses, but the clearance was close. On the first overpass, everyone ducked and said, “Whoa.” But as decedent stood up, just seven seconds later, as he faced the rear of the bus, his head hit the concrete overpass of the next bridge. He died two days later.

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

Additional Resources:

Jury assigns blame, awards $26 million in fatal injury of Manhattan Beach teen on tour bus, Dec. 4, 2016, By Larry Altman, The Daily Breeze

More Blog Entries:

West v. United Services Auto Ass’n – Asserting Bad Faith Insurance, Nov. 21, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Wrongful Death Lawyer 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

Recently in Oklahoma, the operator of a group home was found mostly to blame for the wrongful death an adult resident who died of pneumonia in the spring of 2014, shortly after he was relocated to the home. The relocation occurred because the Oklahoma Department of Human Services voted to close his previous residence rather than investing in building repairs. That meant families were forced to find other suitable arrangements, and many worried there weren’t enough facilities in the area equipped to safely care for individuals with such needs. Attorneys for decedent’s estate argued soon after his arrival at defendant’s facility, he was not properly fed, medicated or supervised.

A lawsuit had been filed against the state, alleging 18 former patients of the first group home died suddenly after being forced to leave and find other sources of full-time care. A jury found the state wasn’t negligent. However, the same can’t be said of the administrators who ran the group home or even the doctors and nurses who provided his care.

According to KFOR-4, the 51-year-old decedent had the mind of an 18-month-old child. He had resided for 40 years in a state-run institution before he transferred to defendant group home in Tulsa. He transferred to the home in January 2014. His sister said the family was assured by administrators he’d be well cared-for. But he was hospitalized in just one month. In her wrongful death lawsuit, she asserts her brother suffered a seizure – which happened occasionally – and the staffers were not trained in how to properly care for him. She claims he was limp and drug out of the house on a chair and laid into a car and driven to a doctor’s office.

He died shortly thereafter. Defendant facility no longer cares for patients with developmental disabilities. After the wrongful death verdict, a spokesperson for the facility said there were no plans to appeal and that the jury’s verdict would be respected. The facility will pay $7.2 million of the $8 million judgment. The remaining amount was assigned to decedent’s doctors and nurses, but they were not named as defendants in this case, and thus will not be financially affected.

These types of cases are in no way unique to Oklahoma. In fact, journalism non-profit ProPublica late last year spotlighted widespread, systemic trouble in group homes caring for disabled individuals across Florida. Journalists discovered at least 145 cases of children in residential facilities dying from avoidable causes over the course of three decades. Some of these facilities receive upwards of $350,000 annually to provide for each patient, and yet fail to provide a basic standard of care. There were also hundreds of reports of abuse and neglect, many of those involving unnecessary and unsafe restraints.

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

Additional Resources:

$8 million verdict awarded in Oklahoma wrongful death lawsuit, Oct. 14, 2016, By Sarah Stewart, KFOR-4

More Blog Entries:

Study: 1 in 5 Nursing Home Residents Abused by Other Residents, July 9, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Wrongful Death Lawyer Blog

Florida statute gives auto insurers the right to set off its obligation not just by what workers’ compensation actually paid, but by the full amount you were entitled to receive. This is spelled out in Fla. Stat. § 627.727. That’s why it’s so important to have an experienced injury attorney in Fort Lauderdale overseeing your case. You don’t want to undercut your rights with UM/UIM coverage by settling too soon.

There could be other considerations as well. Recently, the New Mexico Supreme Court was asked to resolve an issue from a federal district court concerning state law as it pertained to the UIM benefits a deceased worker’s family was entitled to collect after already receiving workers’ compensation death benefits. The case was Vasquez v. American Cas. Co. of Reading.more

According to court records in the case, a man was killed at work when he was struck by a steel beam that had fallen off a forklift while he was working at a wrecking and salvage yard. A co-worker had been operating that forklift and hopped off to make sure the beam was secure. In so doing, he left the forklift unattended, causing the beam to slide off the forks, hitting the victim.

Plaintiff, representative of decedent’s estate, pursued and collected workers’ compensation benefits. Because the incident occurred as a result of negligent operation of a motor vehicle (i.e., a forklift) plaintiff sought underinsured motorist benefits from decedent’s own auto insurance company as well, which plaintiff collected. However, plaintiff then tried to collect additional UIM benefits from a policy held by decedent’s employer.

Insurer denied coverage indicating that exclusivity provisions of workers’ compensation law meant that the UIM benefits were not available for this incident. (Workers’ compensation is considered the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries. That means workers can’t sue their own employer for negligence, but they may be able to pursue third-party litigation where appropriate.)

Plaintiff sued insurer. The federal district court initially denied defense motion to dismiss because the exclusivity provision doesn’t stop an injured employee from suing a third-party motorist to get the difference between their workers compensation benefits and UM/UIM benefits. Lawmakers never intended to prohibit workers to collect damages from third party tortfeasors. However, the district court later reconsidered and vacated this ruling after it reasoned decedent was killed in an accident caused by his co-worker, not a third party.

After handing down this ruling, the court certified an inquiry to the state supreme court to ask whether a worker injured in the course of employment by a co-worker operating a vehicle owned by the employer was someone who was legally entitled to collect damages on the employer’s UM/UIM policy. The court responded: No. Plaintiff would not have been able to hold the co-worker liable due to exclusivity provisions, and thus, plaintiff could not collect UM/UIM benefits.

Our experienced Fort Lauderdale injury lawyers can help you determine the best course of action under your circumstances.

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

Additional Resources:

Vasquez v. American Cas. Co. of Reading., Oct. 13, 2016, New Mexico Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Sims v. Kia Motors of America – Plaintiff’s Expert Witness Testimony Excluded in Product Liability Lawsuit, Oct. 12, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Wrongful Death Attorney Blog

Soon after, there was a rush to file wrongful death lawsuits (five in all) because, as is usually the case, the defendant only has a finite amount of insurance and assets that could cover such claims. But given the large number of deaths, there was a dispute over which family should be the first in line for the payout, if the landlord was indeed found liable for the deaths. (Meanwhile, the landlord faced criminal manslaughter charges.)

Recently, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court settled the issue in Estate of Summers v. Nisbet, closing a legal gap that had existed in the state up to that point.

Court records and news reports show the first to file was the family of Steven Summers, just 29-years-old at the time of his death. However, plaintiffs filed this claim through a process known as ex parte attachment, which means it’s not made public until after the defendant (here, the landlord) goes through the process of challenging the allegations. These filings are secretive because they have the intention of locking a defendant’s assets without any warning so that the defendant won’t try to hide money or property.

But in this case, the landlord never challenged the attachment in court, so the filing was not made public. When the other families filed their ex parte attachments months later, they had no idea this first one was still pending. If they had, they argued, they would have filed a challenge themselves so that the court could prioritize the victim’s claims, rather than locking them all up for one claimant. Further, the families argued the first plaintiff should have never filed one an ex parte claim to start because there was no indication the landlord would try to hide assets.

The trial court decided to toss the ex parte attachment and also removed Summers from the front of the payout line.

Plaintiffs then appealed that decision all the way up to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (the highest court in the land).

There, one justice noted that it was never anticipated by lawmakers or judges that a defendant wouldn’t challenge one of these attachments, so it became an issue of first impression. The question was whether these secret claims could become invalidated just because no one showed up to challenge it and make it public.

The court ruled it was not. The original claim is no less valid, the court ruled, just because it was filed in secret. And with that, the state high court vacated the lower court’s ruling and put Summers back to the front of the line for claims.

This case shows the importance – particularly in a personal injury case where there may be multiple claimants – of filing the claim early on. This requires reaching out to an experienced personal injury attorney as soon as possible.

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

Additional Resources:

Estate of Summers v. Nisbet, June 7, 2016, Maine Supreme Judicial Court

More Blog Entries:

Report: Bus Company Flouts Its Own Driver Fatigue Safety Rules, June 2, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Wrongful Death Lawyer Blog