As Miami school injury lawyers, we are struck by a few different unique elements in this case. Firstly, most school assault injury lawsuits in Florida involve students who are either injured by other students or teachers. Schools unquestionably owe a duty of care to students over whom they have control and can be held liable in some circumstances for criminal assaults that occur on school property or are the perpetuated by school employees or contractors. It’s less common that claims are filed by teachers suffering injury by student. Not that it’s unheard of. An article published last year in Education Week revealed an estimated 6 percent of the nation’s nearly 4 million teachers were attacked by a student during the 2015-2016 school year. Another 10 percent were threatened with violence by a student. The article also highlighted a 2017 study published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence indicating female teachers were more likely to be attacked than male teachers, with new teachers especially vulnerable to threats and violence.

This case hit all those marks. However, teacher injuries sustained in the course and scope of employment – whether a slip-and-fall or an attack by a student – are typically covered by no-fault workers’ compensation. For most work accidents and work injuries, this will be the exclusive remedy (only legal recourse) a teacher or school employee has against an employer district. Work injury exclusive remedy in Florida is spelled out in F.S. 440.11. The only exception is when the actions of an employer, as proven by clear and convincing evidence, reveal the employer deliberately intended to hurt the employee OR engaged in conduct employer knew (based on prior similar accidents or explicit warnings specifically identifying a known danger) was virtually certain to result in an employee injury or death AND that risk of danger wasn’t apparent to employee AND employer deliberately misrepresented or concealed the danger to prevent the employee from making an informed judgment about whether to perform the work.

Since changes were made to this state law in 2003, zero Florida work injury cases have met this exception to exclusive remedy threshold. Arguably, there is a good chance this teacher injury case might have met the proof burden, which is likely why the district chose to settle the case pre-trial for an amount in significant excess of statutory damage caps. District Seeks Millions in Compensation for Assaulted Teacher

In 2014, when this attack occurred at a Miami-Dade High School, claimant was a new teacher hired to work with hearing-impaired students in 2012, but the district reassigned her in 2012 to a position teaching children with emotional and behavioral disorders. This was the school’s first egregious mistake because the teacher was not properly trained for such a position. She was not given self-defense courses, which is a mandate for teachers who work with such high-risk populations – particularly those with a history of violence.

The attacker in this case was 18. During the previous school year, he was repeatedly suspended and eventually expelled for a number of confrontations wherein he threatened to harm school officials and other students. In the spring, he was arrested for written threats to kill/ maim, and he was found competent to stand trial for that alleged offense. Within three months, however, he was enrolled in plaintiff’s school, in plaintiff’s classroom. She knew nothing of his history – and, as The Miami New Times notes, the district broke the law when it failed to tell the teacher all this.

The attack occurred less than one month into the school year, with the student cornering the victim in a classroom, choking her unconscious, sexually assaulting her and then grabbing her cell phone and car keys before fleeing in her vehicle. He was caught later that day, arrested, convicted and sentenced to more than two decades behind bars.

Plaintiff sued the school district, which paid the victim $200,000. The school’s insurer paid her another $1.5 million – the policy limit. Now, the school is asking the state to pay another $1.3 million on its behalf to the victim, for a total compensation of $3 million.

If you are a teacher – or student – who has suffered injury due to a criminal attack at a Miami-Dade County school or at the hands of someone employed by the school, contact an experienced Miami-Dade injury lawyer for information about your legal options.

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

Additional Resources:

The Role of the Perceptions of School Climate and Teacher Victimization by Students, July 27, 2017, Journal of Interpersonal Violence

More Blog Entries:

Worker Injury in Defective Ladder Fall Spurs Lawsuit Against Hotel-Casino, Sept. 29, 2018, Miami Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

According to a recent report from ABC Action News, Florida leads the nation in boating accidents and boating deaths. The article first focuses on one recent accident. Four people were on a boat that was taking on water. It was sinking a few miles off the Florida coast, and they had issued a mayday to the U.S Coast Guard. Fortunately, for these four potential boating accident victims, the Coast Guard got to them in time, and all four were safely rescued.moreRescue swimmers who jumped from their Jay Hawk helicopter secured them in a basket and pulled them up into the chopper one by one to save them. This was a 19-foot boat that was too small for the current conditions at that time, according to a spokesperson.

There is trend in our state where the number of boating deaths and serious boating accidents is increasing. They are up nationwide, but our state is leading the alarming trend. As data from these investigations show, many of these deaths are the result of victims not wearing a life vest. In fact, in 83 percent of all drowning deaths, the victims were not wearing a life vest. As these numbers show, while you can still die while wearing a life vest, you are way more likely to not drown if you are wearing a vest.

As the data also shows, and our Fort Lauderdale boating accident lawyers have seen in many cases, alcohol is often a contributing factor in these accidents. Specifically, Coast Guard data shows that in 15 percent of boating deaths, alcohol was the major contributing factor. This means that these victims would likely still be alive had it not been for a drunk boat operator.

Many people drink while operating a boat, because they don’t think they will crash like they can when drunk driving. The truth is there are many ways to be seriously injured or killed on a boat that do not involve the boat crashing. This is not to say a boat can’t crash, especially with a drunk operator, but we tend to see a lot of different reasons for serious cases of personal injury.

There are accidents involving water skiers or people being pulled behind the boat on some other type of floatation device, such as tube or raft. If the driver is intoxicated and not acting careful with respect the person being towed, this can, and often does, result in serious injury or death. We also have accidents where someone who falls off the boat is seriously injured or killed. A person may be sitting on part of the boat that is not meant for riders when the boat is in motion, for example.

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

Additional Resources:

Despite warnings, Florida leads nation in boating accidents, June 12, 2017, By Adam Winer, ABC Action News

More Blog Entries:

Property Owner Liability for Dangerous Road Conditions, March 7, 2017, Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Video of the incident shows the victim pulling up to the hotel’s valet service with her Lexus sport utility vehicle. An attendant begins unloading her belongings and she steps out of the car. Suddenly, a man who was seen in earlier frames looking on nearby approaches. He calmly gets into the car and sits in the driver’s seat. The scene quickly turns chaotic. He violently slams the vehicle into reverse. He knocks over several valets and hotel guests. Plaintiff instinctively reaches out to the door handle, but the suspect jerks forward, forcefully pulling her arm. In all, seven people were struck and four had to be hospitalized – one in critical condition.

Now, plaintiff argues the hotel and valet service knew or should have known this act might occur and done more to prepare for it or at least warn their guests. According to Courtroom View Network, the assailant had attempted to steal at least five other vehicles from this very same valet service, which operates in the South Florida region. One of those attempts occurred at the very same hotel. All of those incidents occurred in the months before this incident.

In this case, the 50-year-old defendant did eventually make it out of the valet service area with the vehicle. However, the vehicle was found abandoned and the suspect was cornered at a local motel less than 12 hours after the incident.

So how is the hotel or the valet service responsible for the carjacker’s actions?

The issue comes down to foreseeability.

Foreseeability involves whether the person who caused the injury – or was in a position to prevent it – should have reasonably foreseen the consequences that would result from his or her conduct. In the case of third party property owners accused of negligent security, courts have since the 1960s taken the stance that while the property owner may not have known a particular suspect would carry out a particular action, the incident was foreseeable due to recent similar incidents in the same location or nearby. There is a focus on what the relationship was between either the criminal and the defendant or the victim and the defendant.

The legal duty owed to an injured party is summarized in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 344. The invitor who opens the property to the public or for business is subject to liability if an invitee on the premises is physically harmed by a third person because the invitor failed to exercise reasonable care to:

• Learn that such acts were being done or were likely to be done;
• Provide an adequate warning to let visitors know about the danger or otherwise protect them.

Foreseeability is considered in light of all the circumstances.

In this case, plaintiff alleges that despite the carjacker’s previous attempts at stealing cars in just this way, neither the hotel nor the valet service tried to do anything to alter their operation to make it safer, nor did they warn guests about it.

Plaintiff is seeking compensation to cover her medical costs for elbow surgery and post-traumatic stress disorder.

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

Additional Resources:

Battle set for possible punitives claim against luxury hotel in suit over carjacking, June 10, 2016, By Arlin Crisco, CVN

More Blog Entries:

Facebook While You Drive? Better Make Sure You Can Afford the Insurance Bill. July 1, 2016, Miami Personal Injury Lawyer Blog