Published on:

By

It may seem as if the question of driverless, autonomous vehicles is one we aren’t likely to confront for several years, if not decades. In reality, though, legislation passed by Florida lawmakers in 2012 make it perfectly legal for self-driving vehicles to operate on our roads. In theory, a totally driverless car could pull up next to you with no human occupant and there would be no law against it. 

Sen. Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg) is the one who consistently championed that measure and continues to advocate for advancing vehicle technologies. He explained recently to The Tampa Tribune that Florida is one of the most forward-thinking states in regards to mobility and transportation, and the goal is to lure developers and other companies to grow expand this technology here. However, that hasn’t come without concern of the potential risks.

As many personal injury attorneys are noting, this technology may not be fully ready. There are practical and legal concerns about how such vehicles are going to respond in real-life scenarios. One recent example of how things might go terribly wrong occurred recently in Tempe, Arizona. As reported by The New York Times, Uber and other rideshare companies started testing driverless cars a few years ago in Arizona, after officials in that state promised not to impose stringent restrictions on developers. Then earlier this month, an autonomous passenger car operated by Uber (with an emergency backup driver behind the wheel) struck and killed a pedestrian.  It’s believed to be the first pedestrian fatality associated with self-driving technology. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A school district in California has agreed to pay $7.1 million to a former high school football player who sued for personal injuries after he reportedly suffered permanent brain damage stemming from the failure of his coach to recognize his concussion after a game.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports the student was 14 and a freshman on the school’s football team when he was diagnosed with a concussion following a game in the fall of 2013. Coaches reportedly had been trained specifically to recognize the symptoms of head injuries, but despite this did not seek medical help for the student when he displayed several of those symptoms. Prior to the incident, plaintiff was a bright student with a 3.9 GPA and a promising future. He was forced to take a year off school and returned to his studies at a high school that has a program specifically for students suffering from brain injuries.

For a time after the incident, he was comatose. There was uncertainty about whether he’d walk or talk again. His lawyers said the fact that he is now in a position to be able to graduate is “miraculous.”  Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The top court in Massachusetts ruled recently that consumers can sue brand name drug manufacturers over injuries caused by generic versions of their drugs/ treatments made by other companies. 

This ruling – and a growing number like it – are important in product liability law following the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Pliva v. Mensing, which held generic drug makers couldn’t be liable for failure to warn about a dangerous drug because those companies are required to use the exact same safety label as the brand name version. Generic drugs account for about 80 percent of all prescription medications distributed in the U.S. Pliva created a quagmire for consumers because generic manufacturers denied responsibility for creating the labels, but then brand name drug makers were successfully arguing they shouldn’t be liable for drugs they didn’t make or sell. Another 5-4 ruling by the highest court in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett reaffirmed this. Plaintiff suffered horrific injuries after taking a generic version of a pain medication and sought to sue generic drug makers for defective design. As then-Justice Samuel Alito remarked in the majority opinion, “Sympathy for the respondent does not relieve us of the responsibility of following the law.”

What the recent case, Rafferty v. Merck & Co. Inc., helps establish is that drug makers can still be held accountable when those medications harm consumers. Although this was an out-of-state case, our Orlando personal injury attorneys recognize that this is a ruling to which many state high courts will likely turn when facing similar issues. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Amid ongoing incidents of violence at schools and colleges, the California Supreme Court has ruled that colleges DO owe their students a duty of care to protect them from foreseeable violence during curricular activities. This responsibility, the court ruled, was owing to the power dynamic between schools and students, which amounts to a “special relationship.”

This was a reversal of a previous appellate court decision, which held 2 to 1 that universities and colleges had no general legal obligation to protect adult students from the criminal actions of other students.

The case involves a 20-year-old pre-med student who was viciously attacked with a knife in a chemistry classroom by a fellow University of California at Los Angeles student. Her attacker had previously been diagnosed with paranoid delusions and possible schizophrenia and was undergoing outpatient treatment at the university at the time of the incident. He was later found not guilty by reason of insanity. Plaintiff’s argument against the university was the school breached its duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to protect her from foreseeable violence. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A critical element of any Florida slip-and-fall injury lawsuit is establishing actual or constructive knowledge.

Florida’s slip-and-fall statute, F.S. 768.0755, requires that if a person slips and suffers injury in the fall on a transitory foreign substance in a business establishment, that person must first prove the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard and therefore had a duty to actively remedy it. Actual knowledge could be shown if the business created the condition or if a staffer or manager was informed directly of the floor’s condition at that time and location. Constructive knowledge is a bit trickier. It is shown by proving the condition existed for such a length of time that the business establishment should have learned of it in the exercise of ordinary care OR that the condition occurred with regularity and was thus foreseeable.

Indiana has a similar proof burden requirement in these premises liability cases, and this issue arose in a recent case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Public education campaigns have focused for years on the importance of appointing a designated driver if there are plans to be out drinking. However, that concept appears to have been lost to a significant extent among teens and young adults when it comes to the use of drugs by drivers – an increasing threat to road safety.

A newly-released study published in the latest edition of Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs reveals that 33 percent of recent high school graduates reported riding with an impaired peer at some point in the last year, being slightly more likely to ride with a driver impaired by marijuana than a driver who was drunk. Researchers said the takeaway here is that while so much of our efforts have been laser-focused on alcohol-impaired driving, perhaps we need to shift our focus more to users of other substances.

While 20 percent of respondents said they had ridden at least one time with an alcohol-impaired driver, 23 percent said they had been a passenger at least once with a marijuana-impaired driver and 6 percent with a driver who was impaired by other illicit drugs (i.e., cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, LSD or ecstasy). Researchers also examined whether the impaired driver was a friend or relative about the same age, a little-known or unknown person about the same age or someone who was older. Results showed the risk of riding with an impaired driver was much higher for peer drivers than it was for older motorists. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The number of surgical centers in the U.S. has ballooned in recent years to more than 5,600. These facilities started several decades ago as a low-cost alternative for patients undergoing minor surgeries. However, these centers now outnumber hospitals, and federal regulators are approving them for an increasing number of complex procedures. The goal is to reduce federal health care costs. However, it seems many patients are paying the price, according to a new report by Kaiser Health News and USA Today.

The report indicates that staffers at these centers are calling 911 thousands of times annually with complications that range from minor to deadly, but we don’t know exactly how big the problem is because there is no national authority that tracks these incidents. The journalists’ analysis, based on legal filings, autopsy records and medical reports contained in more than 12,000 federal and state inspection records, as well as interviews with physicians, patients and health policy experts, indicates that at least 260 of these patients have died in the last five years as a result of in- and out-patient surgeries at these centers. Some patients were as young as 2-years-old, with some undergoing routine surgeries, like tonsillectomies and colonoscopies. Others are undergoing complex operations like spinal surgeries.

These centers and physicians share in the reward for these surgeries because doctors can earn their own fee plus a cut of the facility fee when they own shares in the center. However, the biggest risk to patients occurs with the fact that while Medicare requires surgical centers to be within 15 miles of an emergency room, it can still mean up to a half hour can pass between the time a 911 call is made and the time one arrives at the ER. Some critics and medical malpractice attorneys argue that certain patients with underlying medical issues or those undergoing serious procedures should only be treated in a hospital in the first place – if they should have these operations at all. Many of these facilities lack the kind of lifesaving training or equipment needed to address a potentially serious complication. These can include simple things like tools necessary to open an airway or training necessary to stop a patient from bleeding to death. At least two dozen patients reportedly died within minutes or days of undergoing surgical center operations. Continue reading →

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

House fires have the potential to cause serious threats to our personal safety and welfare. The National Fire Protection Association estimates home fires kill 2,500 annually (accounting for 93 percent of all civilian structure fire deaths), which breaks down to an average of seven daily. They also injure some 12,300 people each year and cause more than $6.7 billion in direct damage. 

The question of who is legally responsible for a fire can be a complex one, even when there is no evidence someone intentionally set the fire (in which case criminal arson charges may be applicable). More often than not, the cause is accidental, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t preventable or that someone shouldn’t be held liable. The NFPA reports cooking equipment is the No. 1 cause of home structure fires and injuries, followed by smoking and heating equipment.

But for those who live in rental properties, it’s important to consider the actions or omissions of the landlord. While such actions may not have caused the fire, they may have created circumstances that made the structure vulnerable to fire or exacerbated the risk of injury or death. Examples might include absent or broken smoke detectors, blocked fire exits, missing safety equipment and maintenance failures.  Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The horrific events of last month at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County left 17 people killed and dozens of people wounded. It also left the community, the state and the nation reeling, once again trying to make sense of the whys and the hows and who should be held responsible. Most notably, this has sparked another heated debate over access to guns and Second Amendment rights. However, it’s also an important time to examine what duty of care schools, law enforcement officials and other government entities have in keeping students safe, and who should be held accountable when those measures fail or aren’t enough. 

The Miami Herald recently reported that one 15-year-old student, shot five times in both legs, intends to sue Broward County and seek monetary damages to help cover the cost of his long-time recovery. The notice of intent to file a lawsuit names several entities, including the Broward County Public Schools, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office and the school resource officer who was on duty that day. In a briefly outlined statement, his attorney indicated actions by these entities and individuals failed to protect students (and this student in particular) from life-threatening harm, and further were unreasonable, callous and negligent. He asserted the defendants’ actions/ inaction were the proximate cause of plaintiff’s serious and lasting injuries.

Now, we must pause here for a moment to explain because it is a seemingly foreign concept that someone other than the person firing the shots could be legally responsible for the attack. Within the criminal justice system, absent any evidence of collusion or conspiracy, that is probably true. However, within the civil justice system we are looking at anybody who owed a duty of care to the person who was hurt, whether those duties were breached and whether those breaches allowed the perpetrator the access and opportunity to carry out his plots.  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