South Florida Injury Lawyers Blog

Published on: February 21, 2017

School District Liability for Student Injury Weighed

We send our children to school with the expectation that the grounds are reasonably safe and the kids will be properly supervised. When this is not the case and an injury results, it could be grounds for litigation.

Generally, personal injury lawsuits against school districts tend to be tricky because, first and foremost, public schools are agents of the government. As such, they are entitled to certain protections, such as sovereign immunity, which is only waived under certain circumstances. Still, it’s usually accepted that there is a special relationship between school staffers and students, and thus a duty to protect.

In a recent case out of Wyoming, the question was whether a school district should be liable for injuries suffered to a child who fell while playing on a patch of ice on school grounds during school hours. The Wyoming Supreme Court, in reviewing the lower court’s ruling, analyzed four different elements of this case and determined the answer to the question of liability was: No. Continue reading →

Published on: February 16, 2017

Broward Teen Run Over By City Bus Settles County Lawsuit for $850,000

By Dean Freeman

The boy was just 14 when a Broward mass transit bus pulled away from its parked position while his hand was caught in the door. His mother watched in horror as the bus partially ran over her son.

Now, he’s an 18-year-old forever changed by that day. He suffered a traumatic brain injury that has rendered him permanently disabled. He suffers from neurocognitive disorder, adjustment disorder, auditory processing disorder, difficulty with speed and memory processing, deficits in motor dexterity and a number of physical limitations.

Recently, the county commissioners agreed to pay the family $850,000 in a settlement that will allow them to avoid trial. Of that amount, $300,000 will be paid immediately, as that is the maximum allowable under Florida’s sovereign immunity law. The rest, $550,000, would be paid by the county only if it’s approved by the state legislature, a process that could take years, though potentially made easier by the fact the county has agreed not to fight the claims bill, which has already been filed in the state Senate, but not yet in the House. The boy’s medical bills have already exceeded $650,000. Continue reading →

Published on: February 11, 2017

Entila v. Cook – Co-Worker Can Be Liable for Negligence if Not Acting in Course/ Scope of Employer

By Dean Freeman

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: February 4, 2017

Report: CPSC Approves New Safety Standards for Baby Slings

By Dean Freeman

An increasing number of new mothers and fathers are finding especially handy baby slings, those cloth wraps that can be used to help carry an infant in a reclined or upright position. The problem is that there weren’t any federally-mandated standard to regulate the safe design and use of those slings – until now.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that the new federally-mandated standard created by ASTM International, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Sling Carriers.

The new standard incorporates some of the most recent voluntary standards, with a slight modification involving label attachments. The new rule slightly modifies the ASTM’s standard by making it necessary to manufacture warning labels in a way where they will be permanent on the garment. The other mandatory standards for the baby carriers/ slings cover:

The structural integrity to make certain that even after all testing, there isn’t any tearing in the fabric, seam separation or breakage;
That the slings can carry triple the recommended weight of the manufacturer;
That the devices will stop the child from falling out when it’s being used normally (i.e., even if the child is wiggly).

Continue reading →

Published on: January 28, 2017

Baugh v. Cuprum – $11 Million Ladder Injury Verdict Affirmed

By Dean Freeman

A man who suffered catastrophic injuries due to a ladder fall emerged victorious in his personal injury lawsuit against the manufacturer of the ladder from which he fell. The $11 million verdict he won at trial will stand, following a recent review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In Baugh v. Cuprum, defendant manufacturer appealed the trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial on the grounds the district court wrongly allowed two of plaintiff’s expert witnesses to testify about critical issues. However, the appellate court ruled that both methodologies used by the two expert witnesses were adequate and most of defendant’s complaints were regarding the weight given to that expert witness testimony, rather than the admissibility. Defendant also argued it was entitled to a judgment in its favor as a matter of law because plaintiff failed to show the ladder was unreasonably dangerous and that this issue was the most likely cause of plaintiff’s accident. Here again, though, the court found there was sufficient evidence that demonstrated the accident was more likely caused by the ladder’s original design defect as opposed to any wrongful use of it, and there was also enough evidence that a reasonable alternative design existed. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment.

Although multi-million dollar verdicts may not always be the norm, ladder falls are quite common. In fact, they are increasing. Between 1990 and 2005, the American Journal of Preventative Medicine reported the number of ladder-related injuries in the U.S. rose by 50 percent, with almost 1 in 10 victims needing to be hospitalized. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons reports that 500,000 people are treated every year for ladder-related injuries and about 300 of those are fatal. These injuries are estimated to cost us all approximately $11 billion a year. Continue reading →

Published on: January 21, 2017

Jackson v. Ford – Widow Sues Car Maker for Defective Electronic Power Steering

By Dean Freeman

Electronic power assisted steering, sometimes referred to as EPAS, have become an integral part of many newer vehicles. These systems have replaced a lot of the mechanical parts of previous steering assist systems that included pulleys, pumps and fluids. In its place is a tiny computer and a great deal of code. These systems are lighter than the hydraulic ones they replace and they have variable power to help the driver better at lower speeds. They can also be helpful when a vehicle drifts or pulls to one side.

However, these systems are complex, and problems with them can be difficult to diagnose and repair. Ford in particular has come under fire for their EPAS systems. Some consumers have even alleged vehicle defects with the power steering system. Specifically, some have asserted that a defect renders the system prone to sudden and premature failure during ordinary and foreseeable driving situations. This means the driver must suddenly increase their steering effort, which can result in a loss of control. Also problematic is that when the EPAS fails, there is no warning to alert the driver – no chime, no ding, no dash lights, nothing.

This is what was alleged in the recent case of Jackson v. Ford Motor Co., recently weighed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiff, who was a passenger in the vehicle her husband was driving, said the couple was traveling on U.S. Highway 70 in Tennessee when “suddenly and without warning,” the vehicle darted left across the center line and into oncoming traffic. The vehicle was then struck head-on by another car. As a result of the car accident, plaintiff’s husband died. Plaintiff herself suffered life-threatening injuries, which she ultimately survived by left her permanently disabled. Continue reading →

Published on: January 16, 2017

Florida Supreme Court Rejects Medical Malpractice Arbitration Agreement

By Dean Freeman

The Florida Supreme Court late last month ruled in favor of a plaintiff fighting the enforcement of an arbitration agreement following a dispute regarding the care of her infant son, who was stillborn.

In the case of Hernandez v. Crespo, the state high court ruled the arbitration agreement between the child’s mother and the women’s clinic from which she was receiving treatment was invalid. Had the court upheld the agreement as binding, plaintiff would have been forced to handle her dispute through a private arbitration process, rather than the public courts.

Given that there are many downsides to the arbitration process for plaintiffs, this ruling is likely to have a positive effect for medical malpractice plaintiffs in Florida. Arbitration agreements have become the center of numerous types of civil disputes, from nursing home abuse to product liability. Companies are increasingly requiring customers enter into these agreements that are often unfair. In many cases, customers (or in this case, patients,) may not understand what exactly they are giving up. Continue reading →

Published on: January 10, 2017

Toy Safety and Child Injury Concerns Unite CPSC and CBP

By Dean Freeman

While the holidays are over, hopefully the kids are still getting some mileage out of their gifts. Chances are, some of those included toys. Safety of children’s products is largely overseen by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which announced recently it was teaming up with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CPB) to halt the flow of dangerous toys from reaching children this season.

The effectiveness of the effort this past year is still being weighed, but we do know this: Over the four years prior, the team stopped more than 8 million units of about 4,500 different kinds of toys and children’s products that failed to meet federal safety standards from reaching store shelves. These shipments included high levels of lead, small parts, sharp points and violations of labeling requirements. Further, in fiscal year 2016, the number of toy recalls fell sharply to 24, with only one of those being a lead violation, as compared to the 172 toy recalls issued in fiscal year 2009, with 19 of those involving high lead levels. Last year, toys were recalled for dangers that included fire and mechanical and choking hazards.

A new report released by the CPSC indicated that in 2015, there were an estimated 185,500 toy-related injuries that had to be treated at hospital emergency rooms. These cases involved only children under the age of 15, and at least 11 incidents resulted in death (final death counts may not yet be available). Most toy-related injuries involved some type of cut or bruise. Of those injuries that resulted in death, nearly half were riding toys – specifically, non-motorized scooters. Continue reading →

Published on: January 4, 2017

Newton v. Caterpillar – Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine Raised in Work Injury Lawsuit

By Dean Freeman

In many Florida injury lawsuits, plaintiffs must prove the defendant is negligent. That means proving defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff, defendant breached that duty, the breach caused plaintiff’s injuries and the injuries are compensable. However, there are some situations in which one need not prove the defendant was negligent. One can assert vicarious liability for the negligent actions of another person. There are several examples, but one of those stems from ownership of a dangerous instrumentality.

The dangerous instrumentality doctrine is one that stems from common law and it holds that the owner of an inherently dangerous tool is liable for any injuries resulting from the operation of that tool. It’s a form of strict vicarious liability. In Florida, the 1938 state supreme court case of Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson resulted in the finding that motor vehicles are a type of dangerous instrumentality. That’s why an owner of a motor vehicle in Florida can be held liable for injuries caused by someone else’s negligent operation of said vehicle. The idea is that if you trust someone with a motor vehicle with knowledge and consent, you are responsible if it’s used negligently on a public road.

But there are questions that arise occasionally about what other objects may be considered a dangerous instrumentality. It matters a great deal when we’re considering which persons or entities can be liable. One such case recently before Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal was that of Newton v. Caterpillar et al, stemming from a work injury. Continue reading →

Published on: December 28, 2016

Report: Sleep-Deprived Drivers No Better Than Drunk Drivers

By Dean Freeman

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 →