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

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

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

How Can a Third Party Be Liable for Criminal Attack?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources

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

This does not mean you are required to give a statement before talking to an attorney. But it does mean you may be required to testify under oath at the request of the insurer, or else risk foregoing coverage.

This was exactly what happened in a recent Kentucky Supreme Court decision wherein substantive issues of material fact relating to the crash were in question.

According to court records, plaintiffs were passengers in a rear-end crash involving an alleged hit-and-run driver. Plaintiffs and driver were injured. All filed a claim against driver’s auto insurer for coverage – both personal injury protection benefits (PIP) and uninsured motorist coverage. PIP is a no-fault system of coverage that provides for a portion of medical bills and lost wages. UM coverage, meanwhile, is available for those whose injuries aren’t fully covered by PIP and yet the at-fault driver either lacks insurance or is not identified (as is the case in a hit-and-run accident).

The insurance company agent initially allocated PIP benefits to each of the claimants. However, following what the agent described as inconsistent statements by claimants on substantive issues, as well as numerous car accident claims filed by these same individuals in the last 12 months, the insurer sought more information about the car accident. Pointing to the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurer asked claimants to submit to being questioned under oath.

The driver of the vehicle agreed to these terms, underwent questioning and subsequently was awarded UM benefits.

The passengers, however, refused to be questioned under oath. As a result, the insurer denied them any further coverage beyond what was available for PIP.

Plaintiffs then filed a car accident lawsuit against the auto insurer, seeking UM benefits.

Plaintiffs argued they should not have needed to undergo such questioning because the insurer did not have a court order and the questions pertained to their medical history. The trial court, however, granted a defense motion for a declaratory judgment, finding plaintiffs were compelled via the terms of the policy to submit to questioning. Their failure to do so was a forfeiture of the benefits therein.

The appellate court reversed, siding with plaintiff’s reasoning that the insurer was required to obtain a court order before it could compel claimants to testify under oath.

Insurer the appealed to the state supreme court, which reversed the appellate court’s ruling. The court reasoned that previous case law did not prevent the insurer from requiring claimants to submit to reasonable questioning regarding substantive issues of the accident. Further, while conceding that sometimes questions pertaining to the accident and medical issues could intertwine, the state high court indicated it would trust lower courts to properly analyze the distinction between these types of question and allow or prohibit such lines of questioning accordingly.

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

Additional Resources:

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Adams, Aug. 24, 2017, Kentucky Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Injury Claimant’s Marijuana Use Excluded in Trial, $3.3M Damage Award Affirmed, Aug. 15, 2017, Fort Myers Car Accident Lawyer Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

Underinsured motorist coverage will cover in the event you are:

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources:

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

More Blog Entries:

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

Ladder falls are a major problem at American workplaces, but they are also problematic for those off-the-clock as well. Every year, more than 90,000 people are treated in U.S. emergency rooms due to ladder-related injuries. Elevated falls account for 700 work-related deaths every year, which account for 15 percent of all occupational fatalities. The Consumer Product Safety Commission reports ladder-related accidents have increased by 50 percent over the last decade.

Some of the issue involves user error. This could mean using the wrong ladder for the type of task at hand. It could also mean improperly placing the ladder or not using the ladder the right way. It could be the fault of the ladder owner for failure to maintain the ladder or allowing one to be used that is damaged or worn. However, there are also a fair number of these cases that stem from use of ladders that are defectively designed or defectively manufactured.

When a ladder is designed in a way that is not safe and results in an injury, it can be grounds for a product liability lawsuit.

In the Baugh case, plaintiff fell off his ladder at his own home while replacing gutter screws. Due to his fall, he suffered a traumatic brain injury. His wife filed an injury lawsuit on his behalf, alleging the ladder had been defectively designed.

Specifically, plaintiff alleged the ladder wasn’t strong enough to accommodate the weight of a person who weighed at or near 200 pounds. Further, plaintiff asserted there was a feasible alternative design that would have made the ladder safer and prevented the accident. But defendant argued the ladder was designed to hold the weight of an individual up to 200 pounds and the ladder accident happened because plaintiff climbed too high on the ladder and stood on the pail shelf.

At trial, both sides presented several expert witnesses. Plaintiff’s expert witness, a mechanical engineer, testified the ladder could have safely held plaintiff if the ladder was constructed with thicker legs and had longer gussets, which are the metal bars that offer bracing support to a ladder. There was testimony concerning how many pounds could be exerted per square inch of the ladder and the way in which plaintiff was standing.

Defendant’s expert witness testimony was contrary to this, but jurors ultimately sided with plaintiff. They awarded $11 million in damages to the plaintiff.

Defendant appealed, arguing plaintiff’s expert witness should not have been allowed to testify. However, the appeals court noted the supporting arguments given by the defense concerned the weight given to the testimony by the jurors, rather than the admissibility of that testimony. The court held that plaintiff gave enough evidence to show that not only was the ladder defective, but that a feasible alternative did exist.

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

Additional Resources:

Baugh v. Cuprum , Jan. 11, 2017, U.S. court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

More Blog Entries:

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Alleges Restaurant Negligent in Triple Murder, Jan. 14, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blog

Officials told The Washington Post that the bus collided with a tractor-trailer truck that was traveling on the interstate going approximately 5 mph. The bus, which was going much, much faster, slammed into the rear of the truck with such force that the entire front of the bus became enmeshed in the trailer of the truck – a full 15 feet into the back of the rig. Authorities report a total of 13 people were killed and another 31 were seriously injured and taken to area hospitals – all adults with injuries ranging from minor to critical. Of those 13 who lost their lives, 10 were women. One of the three men killed was the driver of the bus.

Now, The Los Angeles Times reports so far two of those families have filed wrongful death lawsuits against the bus company that was chartered to bring them safely home from an L.A. casino. Plaintiffs allege the bus company, USA Holiday, and the driver personally failed to:

• Travel at a safe speed;
• Brake to avoid a crash;
• Properly maintain the bus.

more

The driver of the bus reportedly owned the company, which was operated out of his personal dwelling – which is somewhat unusual for charter bus companies.

Preliminary results of an investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) indicate the bus failed to comply with vehicle safety standards, with two of its eight tires not having sufficient tire tread to be considered safe. The federal investigation of the collision continues. Simultaneously, wrongful death lawyers are conducting their own independent investigations of the incident and have been querying witnesses about what exactly occurred in an effort to gather information pertinent to current or future claims.

Some of the attorneys spoke to the Times, indicating the early results of the investigation suggest what we already had a strong inkling of before: The commercial bus industry is poorly regulated. Consumers purchase a bus ticket with the assumption that there is sufficient oversight of carriers, vehicles and drivers. Too often, we’re finding out that simply isn’t true.

These charter buses, often referred to as motorcoaches, are overseen by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The most recent Motorcoach Safety Action Plan reveals approximately 750 million passenger trips are made in these vehicles annually. From 2001 to 2010, motorcoach crashes resulted in approximately 17 deaths annually. The most common causes of these bus accidents, as reported by federal officials, are:

• Driver fatigue;
• Driver behavior (specifically distraction with cell phones);
• Lack of operator oversight (specifically not properly vetting drivers, failing to ensure drivers are well-rested)
• Failing to properly maintain vehicles.

In 2014, the FMCSA reported there were nearly 4,000 large trucks and buses involved in fatal crashes.

In clearing the wreckage of this latest tragedy, officials say most of the bodies were recovered in their seats, suggesting passengers had been properly seated at the time of the crash. In fact, many had been asleep. Officials are examining the “black box” data recorder that would provide clues as to what exactly occurred in the moments before the collision.

The bus had reportedly last been inspected in April and been deemed roadworthy.

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

Additional Resources:

‘I was awakened by the sounds of people screaming’: Bus crash near Palm Springs kills 13, Oct. 24, 2016, By Amy B. Wang, The Washington Post

More Blog Entries:

$8M Verdict Awarded for Wrongful Death of Disabled Group Home Resident, Oct. 28, 2016, Florida Wrongful Death Lawyer Blog

The answer depends on the underlying circumstances, but generally, you will want to explore:

• The at-fault driver/ insurance;
• The owner of the vehicle/ insurance;
• The employer of the at-fault driver (if he or she was working);
• The establishment that served the at-fault driver alcohol.

That last one – which falls under Florida’s dram shop law – will only work if the drunk driver was either under 21 or known to the establishment to be habitually addicted to alcohol. Per F.S. 768.125, those are the only circumstances under which an establishment may be held accountable for the injurious actions of a drunk driver.

The goal of a dram shop law is to stop commercial establishments from over-serving people who might not be capable of determining when they’ve had too much to drink. However, there are many people who say it doesn’t go far enough. In fact, there are many other states that allow injured victims of drunk drivers to sue establishments that continued to serve alcohol to patrons whom they knew or should have known they were drunk.

Although that is not the case in Florida, there are some plaintiffs who continue to test the boundaries of the statute. One example of this was seen in the recent case of De La Torre v. Flanigan’s Enterprises, Inc., DBA Flanigan’s Bar and Grill.

According to court records, a woman was drinking at a bar one night in December of 2011. While there, she got drunk. At one point, the employees stopped serving alcohol to her and provided her with water in an attempt to “sober her up.”

Soon after, the driver got into her vehicle, crossed into oncoming traffic and struck a vehicle. Inside that vehicle were plaintiffs, and they were seriously injured.

The bar had an internal policy – not required by law – that was supposed to help stop patrons from driving away from the premises drunk. It involved either taking the patron’s keys and/or calling law enforcement to do so or contacting a taxi or sober driver for the employee.

However, on this night, the workers did not take this action.

Plaintiff sued the bar, alleging it had undertaken a voluntary duty to prevent the driver from leaving drunk, and that it was negligent in performing this duty.

The bar moved to dismiss the case, arguing the lawsuit was precluded by F.S. 768.125, and it had no statutory duty to stop an over-21 person about whom they had no prior knowledge of a history of alcohol abuse. Trial court agreed and dismissed the action.

Plaintiffs appealed. Although conceding that none of the statutory exceptions were applicable in this case, they contended liability wasn’t predicated on the sale of alcohol, but rather by the fact that the bar had undertaken a duty of care. Known as the so-called “undertaker’s doctrine,” it was noted in the 2009 Florida Supreme Court case of Wallace v. Dean.

It can be invoked when a person gratuitously or for consideration renders services to another as necessary for the protection of a third person and/or that person’s things and is therefore liable to that third person for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care in that undertaking.

However, Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that the undertaker’s doctrine did not apply in this case. Florida law doesn’t require business owners ensure the safety of intoxicated persons who leave the premises and to impose that additional requirements on those who attempt to enact policies to reduce drunk driving would, the court ruled, be unfair and counterproductive.

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

Additional Resources:

De La Torre v. Flanigan’s Enterprises, Inc., March 9, 2016, Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal

More Blog Entries:

Report: U.S. Drivers are Distracted More Than Half the Time, March 20, 2016, Fort Lauderdale DUI Injury Lawyer Blog

Although news reports do not detail exactly why the judge dismissed the claim, we do know that Ross had described the allegations as “vague.”

The alleged victim stated the incident occurred in December 2011 at a residence owned by Ross and his mother. Victim stated there was iron hardware that was left at ground level. Specifically, there was a rail on the ground connected to an iron rail at the rear of the property.

Plaintiff reportedly sustained severe injuries, suffered disfigurement and endured pain and suffering as a result of the fall. Plaintiff sought in excess of $15,000 in damages.

Ross and his mother told the court they were not at the home at the time of the alleged fall because the property was occupied by tenants.

Although we don’t know the grounds on which the judge dismissed the case, we do know that landlords can and often are held liable for injuries suffered by tenants and also guests of tenants.

Under Chapter 83 of Florida Statutes, we know that residential landlords have a host of duties of care owed to the tenant and others who are lawfully on that property. Those duties include:

• Making sure the property is up to applicable health codes;
• Making sure the property is reasonably maintained;
• Addressing any dangerous animal concerns on the property;
• Ensuring the property is reasonably secure.

If an injury results from a violation of this act, it will serve to bolster a plaintiff’s case for damages.

The other issue in premises liability cases was whether the property owner has sufficient notice of a problem (actual notice). If not, plaintiff may still be able to prove the case by asserting that if property owner had been using reasonable care, he or she would have discovered the dangerous condition (constructive notice).

So for example, if a tenant notifies a landlord that there is a broken stair or lighting issue that poses a fall risk, that’s actual notice. If the landlord doesn’t do anything about it and someone gets hurt, the landlord could be held responsible to pay those damages. On the other hand, let’s say no one told the landlord about the stairway issue, but he or she hasn’t been to the building in two years and the place has fallen into general disrepair. If someone is injured as a result of a dangerous condition on that property, one could make an argument that had the landlord exercised reasonable care, the dangerous condition would have been discovered and he or she would have had an obligation to address it.

In a case like this, plaintiff would need to show the defendant had a duty to keep that particular part of the property in good condition, the property was not in good condition, it was foreseeable that someone would get injured as a result, the danger wasn’t obvious to the victim and the condition directly caused the injury.

If you have questions about pursuing compensation for your recent Fort Lauderdale personal injury, contact our offices today.

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

Additional Resources:

Florida Judge Rules in Rock Ross Case Where Woman Claims She Was Injured at Rapper’s Home, Jan. 15, 2016, By Soren Baker, Hip Hop DX

More Blog Entries:

Grammer v. Lucking – Dog Causes Injury but Doesn’t Bite, Jan. 17, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Blog