They may not be equally at-fault. But as a Fort Lauderdale personal injury lawyer can explain, the fact that an injured party was partly responsible for a crash does not bar them from seeking compensation from the other party, at least not in Florida. That’s thanks to a doctrine known as comparative fault.

Broadly, comparative fault (also called comparative negligence or contributory negligence) is a partial legal defense that can reduce the amount of monetary damages a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim. It’s based on the degree to which the plaintiff’s own fault, negligence, or wrongdoing contributed to cause the injury or exacerbate it.

For example, if Person A runs a red light and causes a crash that injures Person B, the latter has a legitimate claim against the former. This is true even if Person B also happened to be speeding at the time of the crash, thereby making their injuries more severe than they might have been otherwise. In this situation, a jury may find that Person A was 80% at fault and Person B was 20% at fault. If the total damages were $100,000, then Person B’s total damages would be reduced according to their own fault – so by 20%. That means the most they could recover in that scenario would be $80,000.

Florida has been a pure comparative fault state since 1973. That meant that even if you were 99% at fault for the injury you sustained, you could still pursue legal action against the other person for their 1% of fault.

However, that changed in March 2023, with updates to F.S. 768.81, Florida’s comparative fault law. The statute was changed to say that if you are 51% or more responsible for your own injuries, then you cannot recover any damages at all. However, you could be 50% at fault and still recover the other 50% from other at-fault parties.

There are a few states where evidence of any comparative fault will eliminate a plaintiff’s claim to monetary damages in a personal injury case. But even despite this new law change, Florida isn’t one of them. We now adhere to what is called “modified comparative fault with a 51% bar.” This is the most common comparative fault standard in the country, though some states set the bar at 50% instead of 51%.

Comparative fault was always a concerning affirmative defense in Florida, but that’s now more true than ever. A finding of comparative fault now not only risks a reduced damage award – but loss of the case altogether.

It’s worth noting that you should not presume that you will be found comparatively negligent until you talk to a personal injury lawyer. The court may look at the series of events differently than you. It’s possible an accident reconstruction will show the crash happened slightly differently than how you are remembering OR that your presumed fault played only a small part in the outcome.

This is also why you should never apologize at an accident scene. Even if you are genuinely sorry they are hurt, you don’t want your words to be misconstrued as an admission of negligence on your part.

If you are hurt in a car accident in Fort Lauderdale, our Broward personal injury lawyers can examine the facts of your case, determine if you have a viable claim, and help you navigate the claims/litigation process.

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

Additional Resources:

F.S. 768.81, Comparative Fault

More Blog Entries:

Broward Injury Lawyer on Car Accident Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine, Dec. 8, 2024, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Attorney Blog

Third parties, meanwhile, can be liable and compelled to pay damages to the person injured on top of what he/ she receives for workers’ compensation – but only if the plaintiff can prove the third party negligent.

Many serious Florida work injuries involve some type of fault from a third party, whether that’s:

• A general contractor or property owner who fails to make sure the work site is free from an unreasonable risk of hazards (known or foreseeable);
• A negligent driver who strikes a work crew on the road;
• A product manufacturer that designed/ made/ sold a heavy machine that is unreasonably dangerous, even when operated as intended.

more

It’s important in these cases to make sure you’re working with an experienced work injury attorney because collection of workers’ compensation benefits can directly impact what one is able to collect from third parties (you can’t be paid twice for the same medical expenses, for example) and your workers’ compensation insurer or health insurer or hospital may be entitled to subrogation rights. All those entities are going to have experienced attorneys working or them. You need to make certain you have an attorney looking out for your best interests.

Ladder Fall Injury Prompts Third Party Liability

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 43 percent of all fatal falls and 20 percent of falls resulting in injury among workers involve ladders.

A case recently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, involved a worker who sued the owner of a hotel-casino had hired his employer as a subcontractor to clean kitchen hoods and vents. Defendant owned both the property and the defective ladder (and no one disputed the ladder was in unsafe condition).

The subcontractor had been unhappy with the ladder situation, raising the concerns three years earlier. It suggested a platform be built to allow for easier access. They even submitted a platform design. The hotel-casino rejected this, citing budget concern. So for the next several years, subcontractor’s employees – including plaintiff – would access the roof of the hotel via ladders that were leaned across the gap and tied to a railing on the roof. The parties dispute owns the ladders or set them up, but the hotel didn’t typically oversee the subcontractor’s daily work.

On the day in question, plaintiff climbed the ladder from the casino roof to the hotel roof. The ladder, however, slipped and he fell onto the gangway below, suffering serious injuries.

He received workers’ compensation through his employer, but now is seeking further damages in a third-party liability lawsuit against the hotel-casino. He alleged the company was generally negligent and specifically could be liable as the owner/ custodian of defective property. The trial court had ruled that while it was undisputed defendant owned the ladder, there was no dispute plaintiff failed to inspect the ladder and therefore he could not prove it unreasonably dangerous.

The federal appeals court reversed. Material questions remained about whether defendant could be liable for allowing the ladder defect to exist and persist.

If you suffer a fall at work, an experienced work injury attorney in Broward can help you sort your legal options.

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

Additional Resources:

Renwick v. P N K Lake Charles, LLC, Aug. 27, 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District

More Blog Entries:

Federal Court in Florida: Third-Party Sexual Assault Lawsuit Against Cruise Line May Proceed, Aug. 20, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Personal Injury Attorney Blog

The study by the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute analyzed worker back injuries in 28 states over a recent five-year stretch in cases where workers took seven days or more off work. Within these numbers, they analyzed whether the workers were prescribed an opioid painkiller, if they received multiple opioids and the duration of those medications (considering long-term use to mean prescriptions within the first three months of injury extending into the 12-month mark). Then they compared this data to the length of workers’ temporary disability.

They discovered that workers prescribed opiates long-term were on temporary disability three times as long as those who had filed claims yet not received opiates. Those who were only prescribed these powerful painkillers within the first three months, but not thereafter, did not show a substantial impact on disability duration. Study authors also concluded workers employed and residing in “high prescription” regions were more likely to receive a prescription for opioids, regardless of injury.more

Opioids are highly addictive and extremely dangerous. While they may be necessary for acute and chronic pain, they are generally not advised for those with back injuries that don’t require surgery. Despite this, it’s fairly common practice.

Our Fort Lauderdale construction accident attorneys want our clients to be receiving prompt and appropriate medical care for our clients, and sometimes that does include painkillers. Work-related accidents can cause sprains and strains, broken bones, amputations, head injuries and much more. Those are painful conditions and powerful medications may be required. Still, this study is worth noting, as is the fact that in some cases, state workers’ compensation boards and courts will sometimes compel insurers or employers to pay for overdoses and other conditions related to medication taken for work-related accidents.

Business Insurance reported several state appellate courts have held insurers and employers can be held financially accountable for workers’ compensation death benefits when a death occurs as the result of prescriptions taken by injured workers.

So far, courts in Tennessee, Texas and Pennsylvania have all made such rulings. The case in Texas, decided by the Texas 13th District Court of Appeals, was based on a (relatively novel) theory that the side effects of these medications will increase an employee’s risk of exposure to addiction and possibly even death. In that case, the court ruled deaths benefits should be awarded to the widow of a worker, despite the fact toxicology reports revealed his blood contained a deadly amount of hydrocodone indicating he may have taken 20 pills, though he’d been prescribed to take just one every eight hours. Initially, the state’s workers’ compensation board ruled the man’s death was the result of failure to comply with his physician’s orders, and not the work injury he’d suffered years earlier for which he was prescribed the drug. Jurors reversed on appeal, determining his death was the result of his treatment for the work injury.

Workers who are grappling with addiction stemming from a work-related injury should contact an experienced injury attorney.

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

Additional Resource:

Opioid death liability falling on employers, May 20, 2012, By Roberto Ceniceros, Business Journal

More Blog Entries:

Court: Crash Case Defendant/ Employer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment, June 3, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Construction Accident Attorney Blog

There are, however, a few exceptions to the rule. Those include:

• The person who was bitten was not lawfully in the place where the bite occurred. (In other words, he/she was trespassing.)
• Comparative negligence. This asserts the dog bite victim’s own negligence was partially to blame for causing the bite. This generally doesn’t apply to children under the age of 6.

more

Dogs used by law enforcement are known immune from these types of actions in Florida, though such claims would generally fall under an “excessive force” allegation, as opposed to a dog bite injury claim. Generally, the courts are going to look to see whether the force used in an arrest was reasonable and secondly whether authorities gave you a chance to surrender before giving the K-9 unit the order to chase/ attack.

Dog bites can cause serious physical harm and emotional distress. It’s important for all victims to discuss any potential claim with an experienced injury lawyer.

In the recent case of Finch v. Thurston County, the question before the Washington Supreme Court was whether a police officer, bitten in the line of duty by a police dog owned/ controlled by a different police agency, could pursue a claim of strict liability for that bite. The answer was no.

It should be noted that Washington state also allows dog bite claims to be asserted under the legal principle of strict liability. However, under that state’s law, there is a statutory exception that specifically includes bites inflicted by the “lawful application of a police dog.”

According to court record, plaintiff, while working as a police officer for a small city outside of Olympia. He responded to a call to investigate a possible burglary at an old brewery. The officer surveyed the scene and then requested a K-9 unit to assist.

Two deputies from the local county agency responded (per an interlocal cooperation agreement) with a trained dog, named Rex. The three officers decided they would continue their search of the site together. The building was dark except for officer flashlights. One of the deputies loudly announced their presence. No one responded, and the dog was ordered to search the site. The unleashed dog tracked the site of a suspect in and out of several rooms. Officers followed the dog to a room where suspect was hiding. The county deputy called the dog back to him. Moments later, the city police officer spotted the suspect and shouted at the suspect to show his hands. It was at that point Rex bit the city officer. Deputies had to physically pull the dog off the city officer before they could take the suspect into custody.

Plaintiff drove himself to the hospital and had to undergo surgery for his injuries.

In June 2012, almost two years after the incident, plaintiff filed a dog bite injury lawsuit against the county, asserting strict liability. The very next day, a state house bill went into effect that exempted the lawful application of a police dog as an exception to strict liability for dog bites.

Trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claim, concluding the bite did occur in the lawful application of a police dog. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that exception didn’t apply because the search for the suspect was already over and the dog had been recalled back to the deputies when the dog attacked him.

The state supreme court disagreed with plaintiff and determined it was appropriate to apply the exception. The reason, the court ruled, was because the dog was:

• Being used by a law enforcement agency;
• Specially-trained for law enforcement work;
• Under the control of a dog handler when the bite happened.

Dog bite injury lawsuits can pose more complications than it might seem at first blush. We can help you determine the best course of action.

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

Additional Resources:

Finch v. Thurston County, Oct. 13, 2016, Washington Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Am. Family Mut. Ins. v. Williams – Dog Injury Liability Case to Proceed, Aug. 23, 2016, Fort Lauderdale Dog Bite Injury Lawyer Blog