injury attorney Fort Lauderdale - Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

Court Affirms Dog Bite Injury Verdict Against Dog and Property Owners

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Sun, 20 May 2018 15:21:39 GMT

Approximately 4.5 million dog bites are reported each year, with 1 in 5 of those bites becoming infected (according to the CDC), 28,000 requiring reconstructive surgery (according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons) and accounting for one-third – or $700 million – of all homeowner insurance liability payouts (per the Insurance Information Institute).

Defendants in these cases can sometimes include not just the owner of the dog, but the property owner controlling the site where the bite occurred.

In Litke v. Munkoff, the Idaho Supreme Court recently upheld a $201,000 verdict in favor of a dog bite victim against his neighbors and their adult son after the son’s dog bit him, causing serious injuries. The defendants sought a new trial or in the alternative, a remittitur to lower the damages. The state supreme court found no reversible error.

According to court records, it started when an animal control officer responded to the scene of an allegedly vicious dog and found a pit bull aggressively charging any person who got near him. The officer had to call in a second officer to help capture the dog, an the pair eventually tasered the canine to subdue and capture him. The next day, the dog’s owner (defendants’ son) called animal control officers to report the dog missing. The officer informed him the dog was in animal control custody, had been declared aggressive and that he would need to sign paperwork indicating he understood his requirements under local ordinance before he could claim the dog. The owner told the officer his dog would be better controlled at his parents’ home rather than his apartment. The officer met the dog’s owner at his parents’ home and determined the fence was appropriate in height to meet the ordinance requirements, but that he must also post a Beware of Dog sign and if the dog left the premises, he’d need to be muzzled. The father arrived home while the officer was there and agreed verbally to follow the ordinance requirements.more

Just a few months later, animal control received a report of a dog bite that had occurred near the defendants’ home. The dog’s owner was cited for allowing the animal to run at-large and attacking. The dog was also declared dangerous. The owner was additionally cited for allowing another dog to run at-large at the same time. Animal control officers spoke with the father again, who stated his son was not allowed to move back in and the dog was not allowed to be on his property, even for a visit. Further, he told animal control if the dog were to enter his home, he’d shoot it.

That summer, the son took a job out-of-state and left his dog at his parents’ home, presumably with their permission. Plaintiff is defendants’ neighbor. He later testified the dog barked at him frequently and charged the fence aggressively whenever he was outside working on his yard. One day when the son returned for a visit, he took the dog out for a walk. The dog was not muzzled, as required for his dangerous designation. Plaintiff thought maybe if he could make friends with the dog, it wouldn’t bark at him so much. The son gave him permission to pet the dog. As plaintiff bent down to pet the dog, the animal lunged at him, knocked him to the ground and bit his face. Plaintiff’s lower lip and chin were partially torn from his face, as was a segment of his face.

Plaintiffs sued the son, his parents/ property owners, the city and the police chief. District court dismissed claims against the government. Defendant property owners filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted all except for the allegation of negligence.

The case was tried, and the property owners and their son were found negligent and negligent per se, with jurors concluding defendants’ negligence caused plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff property owners sought a new trial, arguing their summary judgment motion should have been granted. In that motion, they argued they had no affirmative duty to prevent their neighbor’s injuries because they weren’t in control of the dog at the time of the incident. They conceded it might have been foreseeable the dog could have caused harm while on their property, but alleged the court did not examine whether the property owners were the dog’s custodian at the time of the incident. However, they alleged even if they had breached a duty of care, there was no causal connection because their son’s actions in walking the dog without a muzzle was a superseding cause. The court didn’t consider this.

However, the court did not err when it denied the defendants’ motion for a remittitur because the verdict was not excessive or made under the influence of passion and the jury’s damage award was supported by substantial and competent evidence.

Further, the court awarded plaintiff additional attorney fees for the cost of the appeal.

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

Additional Resources:

Litke v. Munkhoff, April 27, 2018, Idaho Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Study: One-Third of Young Adults Ride With Drug-Impaired Driver, April 4, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Dog Bite Injury Attorney Blog

Florida Energy Drink Lawsuits Allege Serious, Irreversible Effects

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 10:22:52 GMT

A man in his 20s, constantly on-the-go, felt a sudden wave of nausea come over him as he was driving on the way to work. His vision grew blurry. He pulled over and called his boss. He wouldn’t be in that day. Within hours, he was rushed to the emergency room, where he discovered he had stage 4 kidney disease.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources:

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

More Blog Entries:

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

South Florida Hoverboard Injuries Rise

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 20:27:01 GMT

Weeks ahead of Christmas, Elliot F. Kaye, Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, issued a statement indicating mounting concerns about injuries relating to the season’s hottest new toy: The hoverboard.

The device (which does not hover) is perhaps better described as a chargeable, self-balancing motorized scooter. The problems with the issue are reportedly two-fold:

They catch fire.
They pose significant fall hazards.

The fire issue is the one that has garnered the most attention, though the CPSC points out the fall hazards as just as much if not more serious, resulting in hundreds of cases of serious injuries, including:

Concussions
Fractures
Contusions/ abrasions
Internal organ injuries

In South Florida, the Sun-Sentinel looked into instances of local injuries and discovered that as of December 30th, there were 40 reports of emergency room visits due to hoverboard injuries in Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties. Among those were broken wrists, fractured wrists and concussions.

Fort Lauderdale injury lawyers understand these were not just kids. In fact, among those hurt were U.S. Rep. Carlos Curbelo, R-Miami, who posted a picture of himself on social media with his arm in a sling, indicating the injury was due to falling off a hoverboard.

Mike Tyson, the former pro-boxer, posted a clip of himself falling straight onto his back off his daughter’s pink hoverboard.

There was at least one reported local case of a hoverboard catching fire. That happened in Boca Raton, where a mother reported to officials her 11-year-old daughter was riding the device when it began to make a “popping sound.” She jumped off and the board caught fire.

The devices have not been recalled, but these concerns are mounting. Local physicians say problems are generally associated with not having the right safety equipment (i.e., helmet, knee pads, wrist guards, elbow pads), and lack of experience (which makes sense because the devices are so new).

Although most of the injuries reported locally have generally been pretty mild, there have been a handful of cases in which serious injuries were reported. Among those was a 10-year-old from Hialeah who had to be flown by helicopter to a Hollywood hospital after a hoverboard fall in which he suffered an open fracture, which is when the bone is protruding from the skin.

One pediatric orthopedic surgeon quoted by the newspaper said that while these look like fun toys, it should be treated with the potential danger of learning to ride a bicycle or roller skates – with the expectation that you will fall while you’re getting the hang of it.

Meanwhile, the CPSC has expressed concern that there are no safety standards in place for the devices. Kaye urged retailers to be cautious when selling products that lack these standards by mandating additional proof of safe design, manufacturing and quality control from manufacturers (most of whom are in China). Failure to do this could open retailers – as part of the distribution chain – to a product liability lawsuit.

As far as consumers are concerned, the agency for now has urged the public not to charge the boards overnight or without supervision, to use appropriate safety gear and to avoid riding it near traffic.

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

Additional Resources:

Hoverboard injuries spike in South Florida, Dec. 30, 2015, By Brittany Shammas, Sun-Sentinel

More Blog Entries:

Holiday Home Fires Are Rising Concern for Florida Fire Officials, Dec. 24, 2015, Broward Injury Attorney Blog

Gemmink v. Jay Peak Inc. – Negligent Maintenance of Property

Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 14:17:02 GMT

Property owners have a duty to take reasonable steps to make sure their property is safe. That includes addressing slippery conditions, longstanding walkway defects or security issues. This is especially true for property owners who host risky and potentially dangerous activities on site, regardless of whether participants sign waivers.

That said, plaintiffs still have a heavy proof burden in showing a causal link between a property owner’s negligent maintenance of property and alleged injuries.

This was seen in the recent case of Gemmink v. Jay Peak Inc., recently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

According to court records, plaintiff was injured while skiing at a resort in Vermont with his daughter. The two were skiing down one trail, which intersected with another. However, when his daughter reached the end, she realized her father hadn’t followed her down. A worker for the resort would later find plaintiff in great pain, lying on his back near a tree.

Worker described plaintiff as “combative,” but indicated he could not recall the incident that caused him injury. Plaintiff’s daughter, however, took note of a jump near the trees right by the intersection. This led plaintiff to opine another patron flew off that jump and collided with him, rendering him unconscious and suffering from a concussion, fractures to several of his left ribs and his left arm.

He filed a lawsuit to recover damages, asserting the resort allowed dangerous jumps on its trails and he was injured as a consequence of that.

But there were several problems with his filing, beginning with the fact that it was done pro se, meaning without a lawyer. While negligence may seem a fairly simple thing to prove, the reality is it is not. Premises liability law in particular is filled with nuance and it can vary greatly from state-to-state and even from one property to the next. (For example, what is considered “negligent security” in one location may not necessarily be considered negligent in the next.) An experienced personal injury lawyer can help clients navigate these issues, and advise on the best legal strategies given the unique circumstances of the case.

Those who fear the cost of hiring an attorney should know many cases can be accepted on a contingency fee basis, meaning if a lawyer accepts your case, the law firm covers all costs upfront and there are no attorneys fees unless you win.

Beyond plaintiff’s failure to hire an attorney, he failed to produce sufficient evidence to indicate the cause of his injury. He needed to show more probably than not that defendant’s negligence was the cause of his injury. The fact that neither he nor anyone else saw another skier collide with him and he produced little in the way of circumstantial evidence to prove that’s what happened.

And even if he was able to do that, he failed to provide any expert witness testimony that could prove that a lack of maintenance of this nature would result in this type of accident with any sort of frequency. While expert witness testimony isn’t required in every injury case, it is generally required to support a finding of causation where the link may be obscure and a layperson with no well-founded knowledge could only speculate.

Although south Florida doesn’t have any ski resorts to boast of, there are many activities for which property owners may owe a duty of care to patrons. Success in these cases starts with consultation with a lawyer who has experience in this area of law.

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

Additional Resources:

Gemmink v. Jay Peak Inc., Nov. 30, 2015, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

More Blog Entries:

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