COVID-19 Update: How We Are Serving and Protecting Our Clients.
National Trial Lawyer Top 100
FACDL
ABA
Escambia-Santa Rosa Bar Association
BBB
10 Best 2018-2019
AVVO

In Florida, a plaintiff in a car accident case generally must show that the defendant’s negligence caused the accident to recover damages. In turn, if a defendant can show that it was not their negligence but the negligence of the plaintiff that caused a collision, they may be able to obtain a verdict in their favor. While a defendant is permitted to introduce evidence suggesting a plaintiff’s fault, they cannot proffer information that is irrelevant or unduly prejudicial as discussed in a recent Florida opinion issued in a wrongful death case arising out of a car accident. If you lost a loved one in a fatal car crash, it is advisable to speak to a knowledgeable Florida car accident attorney about your rights.

The Subject Accident

Allegedly, the defendant, who was driving a car, collided with the decedent, who was operating a motorcycle.  The decedent sustained critical injuries in the accident and passed away shortly after. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant on behalf of the decedent’s estate, alleging that the defendant’s negligence caused the collision and the decedent’s death. No one observed the accident, but one witness saw the decedent shortly before and after the crash. She testified that she saw him perform a wheelie approximately five minutes before the collision and later arrived at the scene of the collision.

It is reported that before the trial, the plaintiff moved to bar the defendant from introducing evidence regarding the wheelie the decedent reportedly performed or suggesting that the wheelie led to the collision, on the basis that there was no evidence he performed a wheelie at the time of the accident. The decedent filed a response in opposition to the motion. Continue reading

Warehouse stores offer shoppers the convenience of being able to purchase a wide variety of goods in one place. While the vastness of such retail establishments allows them to provide customers with one-stop shopping, it can also make it difficult for people working in the store to remedy potentially harmful situations, like spills, when they occur. As such, it is not uncommon for people to encounter slippery conditions in stores and fall and sustain injuries. Whether a store will be liable for harm suffered in a slip and fall accident largely depends on whether it knew or should have known of the presence of a transitory condition that caused the fall, as explained in a recent Florida opinion. If you suffered harm in a slip and fall accident, you could be owed damages, and you should meet with a Florida personal injury lawyer to discuss your potential claims.

The Plaintiff’s Fall

It is reported that the plaintiff was shopping in the defendant’s warehouse store when he slipped and fell in a puddle in the freezer aisle. He stated he did not know how long the liquid had been on the floor, but after he fell, he noticed water leaking from the ceiling above the area where the fall occurred. He sustained back injuries in the fall and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging its negligence led to his harm. The defendant moved for dismissal via summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish it had constructive notice of the leak as required to impose liability under Florida law.

Establishing Constructive Notice in Florida Slip and Fall Cases

The court ultimately denied the defendant’s motion. The court explained that a reasonable jury could find that the defendant had constructive notice of the water on the floor, and therefore, summary judgment was improper. In Florida, a person who falls on a transitory foreign substance on the floor of a business must establish that the business either knew or should have known of the dangerous condition and taken measures to fix it. Generally, a transitory substance is any solid or liquid substance or item that is in a place where it does not belong. Continue reading

When a person who is hurt in a car accident decides to pursue damages from the party responsible for the collision, the injured party’s medical records are usually discoverable. Even if plaintiffs agree to release documents pertaining to their medical treatment, though, a defendant may face difficulties obtaining such records if the treatment provider objects to their disclosure. The right of a defendant in a car accident case to review records from a third-party provider was the topic of a recent Florida opinion, in a matter in which the court ultimately declined to order the production of the documents. If you were injured in a collision, it is in your best interest to meet with a capable Florida car accident attorney regarding your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Treating Records

Reportedly, the plaintiff and the defendant were involved in a collision that caused the plaintiff to suffer back and neck injuries. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, seeking damages under a theory of negligence. The defendant admitted he was liable for the accident but disputed the amount of damages the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

It is alleged that through the course of discovery, the defendant sought records from the numerous practitioners that treated the plaintiff, including one that specialized in treating spinal injuries (the provider). The provider objected to the request and filed a motion for a protective order, arguing the documents contained trade secrets and were protected from disclosure. Continue reading

People who drive while intoxicated often cause collisions and evidence of their intoxication at the time of the crash can typically be used to demonstrate their liability. If a drunk driver admits fault for a crash, however, evidence of their inebriation may not be admissible, as demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling. If you were injured in a crash caused by a drunk driver, it is critical to speak to a seasoned Florida car accident lawyer to assess your possible claims.

The Accident and Trial

Allegedly, the plaintiff was stopped at a red light when he was rear-ended by the defendant. An investigation revealed that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the crash. The plaintiff suffered injuries in the collision and therefore filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting negligence claims and seeking punitive damages due to his intoxication. Prior to trial, the defendant stipulated his liability for the accident. He also admitted that if the plaintiff was granted compensatory damages, he would be entitled to punitive damages as well.

It is reported that, prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to bifurcate the trial and to bar the plaintiff from introducing evidence of his intoxication during the compensatory damages phase, when the jury would determine whether the defendant caused the plaintiff’s harm and if so, the extent of his injuries. The court granted the motion with regard to bifurcation but ruled that the plaintiff could present evidence of the defendant’s intoxication. The jury granted the plaintiff over two and a half million dollars in compensatory damages, and the defendant appealed. Continue reading

When a rear-end collision happens, the second driver is often deemed liable for any harm suffered by the first driver. However, simply because a rear-end crash occurs does not mean the first driver is void of fault as a matter of law. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling in a case arising out of a rear-end crash in which the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, noting that there was a factual dispute as to whether the plaintiff was comparatively negligent. If you were hurt in a crash caused by another driver, it is prudent to speak to an assertive Florida car accident attorney to assess your possible claims.

The Accident

It is alleged that a multi-car collision occurred on a Florida highway. During the accident, the plaintiff’s vehicle was struck in the rear by a tractor-trailer driven by the defendant. The plaintiff sustained significant injuries in the accident, which required surgical repair. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant driver and his employer, alleging their negligence proximately caused his harm. At the close of discovery, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The court ultimately denied the plaintiff’s motion.

Fault in Rear-End Collisions

The court explained that summary judgment is only appropriate in cases in which it is clear that no true dispute over any material issue exists, and therefore the moving party has the right to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. The party seeking summary judgment is tasked with proving that there are no disputed issues of material fact. If the moving party meets this burden, any party opposing the motion must then set forth evidence sufficient to demonstrate the presence of a factual dispute that must be resolved via trial. Continue reading

Contact Information