Articles Posted in Auto Accident

Published on:

By

The food truck industry has grown substantially in recent years, with industry researchers forecasting growth to generate about $2.7 billion this year – a 12-fold increase from the $650 million they made in 2012, according to the American Restaurant Association. But food truck liability issues may go beyond a case of food poisoning. Although they are acting as restaurants, they are still technically motor vehicles, and they move from place-to-place – sometimes constantly and sometimes to the same scheduled place every day or week. 

This hybrid status can raise questions if someone is injured by a food truck accident. Obviously, if a crash occurs on the road with a food truck, as it did in a fatal food truck crash in Washington state last year, one might pursue a typical motor vehicle accident claim, with possible claims also against the owner of the business and/or vehicle if different from the driver. However, if an incident occurs in a parking lot, that can raise questions as to whether this is a straight motor vehicle claim or whether it may also give rise to premises liability claims, which hold property owners and controllers responsible for creating or failing to mitigate risks on their property.

An increasing number of businesses are welcoming food truck vendors on site to offer a variety of choices to patrons. This can leave the liability issue a bit murky, which is why if you’re injured, it will be essential to have the best injury attorney working on your behalf.  Continue reading →

Published on:

By

An estimated 50,000 crashes every year in Florida are attributed to distraction, according to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. These collisions lead to 3,500 serious bodily injuries and nearly 250 deaths. Further, it’s a phenomenon that has spiked 26 percent just in the last four years, largely thanks to the advent of cell phones.

But for all the destruction and havoc it wreaks, texting and driving is not a primary offense in Florida. What this means is a law enforcement officer may clearly spot a driver who is in violation of F.S. 316.305 (Florida’s texting-and-driving law), and would be able to do nothing about it – even with clear and unequivocal proof – unless that driver was also in violation of a primary offense.

That could change if a bill passes that would make texting while driving a primary offense. It’s not the first time such a measure has been proposed, as The Tampa Bay Times reports, but this time it has the support of several key legislative leaders. The new bill would keep the fine for texting and driving at a meager $30 and there still would not be any points added to the driver’s record if there was a violation. The main difference would be that officers would have the power to stop and cite motorists solely for violating that offense.  Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Typically if you are injured at work, you should be able to collect workers’ compensation insurance. However, because workers’ compensation is considered an “exclusive remedy,” your employer is immune from further litigation related to that injury – even if the company was negligent. There are a few exceptions, but they are very narrow.

What’s more, this immunity extends also to co-workers who are acting in the course and scope of employment. That means even if your co-worker does something that is extremely careless and you wind up hurt, you still can’t sue them. But (there’s always a “but”) there could be an exception if your co-worker was not acting in the course and scope of employment. This would apply to an extremely narrow set of circumstances, particularly if the plaintiff qualified for workers’ compensation. However, it is possible, as the recent Washington Supreme Court case of Entila v. Cook illustrates.

According to court records, defendant and plaintiff were both employees of the same company. One was heading into work, and one was leaving. The injury occurred as plaintiff was crossing the street on an access road belonging to the company, while defendant, operating his personal vehicle on that same road after finishing his shift. Defendant struck plaintiff with his vehicle, causing plaintiff to suffer serious personal injuries. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

One of the greatest risks on the road is drunk drivers. We all know that. But another hazard that is equally dangerous – and gets far less ink – is drowsy driving. 

A recent study released by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety opines that acute sleep deprivation exponentially increases the risk of an auto accident. In fact, even mild sleep deprivation ups the risk. Drivers who slept for less than seven hours in the previous 24 hours and also drivers who slept for one hour less than normal had a “significantly elevated crash risk.” As compared to drivers who slept 7 hours or more in the preceding 24 hours:

  • Drivers who slept 6-7 hours had 1.3 times the crash rate;
  • Drivers who slept 5-6 hours had 1.9 times the crash rate;
  • Drivers who slept 4-5 hours at 4.3 times the crash rate;
  • Drivers who slept less than 4 hours had 11.5 times the crash rate.

Meanwhile, drivers who slept 1 to 2 hours less than their usual rate had 1.3 times the crash rate. Meanwhile, those who slept 4 or more hours less than their usual had 10.2 times the crash rate.  Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Many auto insurance policies contain anti-stacking provisions that are intended to avoid applying multiple sets of deductibles or multiple sets of limits to cover a single car accident. It’s important that Florida car accident victims understand whether their policy allows for stacked coverage because it can significantly impact the amount of damages to which you are entitled.

The allowance of these provisions with respect to uninsured motorist (UM)/ underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage varies significantly from state-to-state.

Recently, the Idaho Supreme Court considered whether the UIM anti-stacking language in two separate policies that covered a young man seriously injured in an auto accident was valid. In Gearhart v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins Co., the divorced parents of a young man seriously injured in a crash both sought UIM benefits under separate auto insurance policies that both covered him in the event of a crash. Now, following the court’s ruling, they’ll be able to collect on those benefits, which will go toward helping their son recover. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Auto accident insurance companies will always fight to limit the benefits you receive following a crash. This is true whether you are a third-party or their customer. 

All auto insurance policies define certain limits based on how much they are willing to pay per-person and how much they will pay per-accident. If the amount from the at-fault driver’s insurance company is insufficient to cover all damages, victims may want to explore recovery through an underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage policy. This could be a policy the victim held directly or one that covered the non-fault driver in a car accident wherein they were a passenger.

In the recent case of Trotter v. Harleysville, plaintiffs argued that the UIM coverage should kick in when the at-fault driver’s insurer did not pay them the full per-person amount to which they were entitled. The UIM insurer, however, argued that the total per-accident limit had been paid by the at-fault driver’s insurer, and thus it was not required to pay any more. The case was weighed recently by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Courts are reticent to allow the introduction of evidence pertaining to insurance coverage in accident cases. The reason is that unless it is somehow pertinent to the cause of the crash or extent of the injuries, it can be prejudicial to a jury. 

For example, if jurors know that a certain defendant has no insurance, they may decline to impose a significant award of damages to the plaintiff – knowing the defendant is going to have to come out-of-pocket for that expense. Similarly, if jurors had knowledge that a defendant had a sizable insurance policy, they may be inclined to impose a heftier damage award – because they know the insurance company can pay.

Courts prefer to simply take it out of the equation.

In the recent Maryland case of Perry v. Asphalt & Concrete Servs., Inc., a pedestrian was struck and severely injured by a dump truck wherein neither the driver nor the vehicle had the proper liability coverage. But was this fact admissible?  Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Auto insurance policies can contain complex legalese that can be difficult to sift through, particularly in the wake of a devastating auto accident. 

These policies are purchased not just because they are often required by law, but also because they offer necessary financial protections to to those who survive and also to those who survive them. However, establishing insurance liability when there are so many caveats to coverage can be a challenge.

In the recent case of Nodak Mutual Ins. Co. v. Koller, the guardian of a child whose mother perished in an all-terrain vehicle accident sought to establish maximum coverage from the insurer. The insurer, however, fought to establish that only the lesser “step-down” coverage was applicable. The outcome hinged on whether decedent driver was a household resident of the insured, his stepfather. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

There is much discussion nationally about “tort reform,” and this idea that it’s somehow quite easy to take home millions of dollars for a frivolous filing. This isn’t true, and the reason we tend to hear so much about lawsuits with multi-million-dollar verdicts is they are rare.

Truth is, most successful lawsuits are settled out-of-court before they ever make it to the trial phase. They also don’t tend to be multi-million-dollar payments with inclusion of punitive damages, but rather adequate sums that  help to compensate the victim for substantial losses.

When a plaintiff signs off on a settlement, he or she must be very cautious in reading the language contained therein. They need to make sure they aren’t signing away important rights to which they may have wanted to avail themselves at a later time.  Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Florida has a major problem with hit-and-run accidents. Drivers who are involved in serious, injurious and even fatal crashes fail to take responsibility for their actions – and risk facing a minimum mandatory four years in prison – by fleeing the scene.

This presents a host of problems for injured victims. The first is that the failure to call for help or render aid results in precious time lost for emergency response that can mean the difference between life and death. Beyond that, survivors may have substantial medical bills, which are compounded by loss of wages and earning potential. Florida’s no-fault insurance typically pays for a small portion of that, but if the driver is not identified, the victims may have no choice but to pursue uninsured motorist coverage through their own insurer. This coverage isn’t mandatory in Florida, but this is one of the main reasons it’s recommended, especially because, as the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles reports, hit-and-run crashes spiked nearly 25 percent from 2013 to 2014.

Now, a recent case out of Port St. Lucie has sparked conversation about whether in-vehicle technology may be useful in preventing hit-and-run accidents or helping to catch perpetrators. According to news reports, a woman was driving a Ford truck when she allegedly rear-ended another driver in a Dodge minivan. But rather than stay at the scene, as required by F.S. 316.027, she allegedly took off. Meanwhile, the woman in the other vehicle was transported to a hospital with back injuries. Continue reading →

Contact Information
WEST PALM BEACH
5 Harvard Cir #110
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Phone: 561-999-9999
Fax: 561-689-4310
PLANTATION
8751 W Broward Blvd #106
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: 954-999-9999
Toll Free: 800-561-7777
Fax: 954-979-1225
MIAMI
7685 SW 104th St #200
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: 786-517-9774
Toll Free: 800-561-7777
Fax: 954-979-1225
ORLANDO
258 Southhall Ln #140
Maitland, FL 32751
Phone: 407-999-9999
Fax: 407-956-3820

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Freeman Injury Law
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design