It’s not often that a court has to determine what the law was, and what law applied, almost five years previously. But a recent slip and fall case has caused a court to evaluate whether a law changed back in 2010 should apply to an accident that happened in 2005.


Child Falls on Substance in a Mall

A woman alleged that in 2005, her minor son fell on a slippery substance in shopping mall, right near a Chick-Fil-A restaurant. She sued for his injuries, alleging the restaurant negligently allowed the foreign substance to remain on the floor, and knew or should have known it was there, thus creating a dangerous condition.

In depositions, the family recalled a large, slowing puddle of liquid on the floor, not just a small wet spot. Although the fall actually occurred on shopping mall property, and not on the restaurant’s premises, the family testified that they could tell the puddle was coming from Chick-Fil-A’s restaurant area.

The Changing Slip and Fall Laws

The problem is that in 2010, the slip and fall laws changed, requiring an injured party show that a business had control over the area where the victim was injured. A victim also had to show that a business knew or had constructive knowledge that a dangerous condition existed. In other words, a party had to show a defendant was “actively negligent” by having actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous substance.

Under the 2010 law, a victim would have to show, for example, how long a substance was on the floor, or that policies or procedures weren’t maintained that would have allowed a business to discover the substance. The standard was thus much higher for accident victims trying to prove their claim.

Court Determines If Law is Retroactive

So did the 2010 law change apply to the victim’s 2005 accident? The real question is whether the new law is retroactive. Generally, laws that change substantive rights are not retroactive. Those that just change procedure, however, can be.

Making this problem more difficult was that there were only a few previous rulings dealing with this issue, and each had been determined differently—some allowing the statute to be retroactively applied, and some not.

The court here decided not to make the statute retroactive, determining it altered an injured party’s substantive rights. Thus, the victim only had to show there was no reasonable care in the maintenance and inspection of the premises—not that Chick-Fil-A actually knew or should have known there was a substance on the floor.

Because only Chick-Fil-A employees were allowed inside the kitchen area of the restaurant, and that’s where the liquid was flowing from, the court determined that the victims could make a negligence claim against the restaurant.

The court did certify the issue to the Florida Supreme Court, a process by which a court can ask the Supreme Court to render an opinion, when many appellate courts are divided over a particular issue. It’s unknown whether the Supreme Court will accept the invite.

Slip and fall cases can have serious damages, and may be fact-intensive. Talk to the Miami personal injury attorneys at Gerson & Schwartz, P.A. today for a free consultation about your fall case and to understand how the law applies in your situation.

Photo Credit: pht via Compfight cc

One of the most frightening scenarios for patients who undergo a surgical procedure in a hospital is the possibility of having a foreign object left inside of them. A recent case discusses how and when the law protects those who fall victim to this kind of negligence.


Man Has Object Left Inside of Him

Recently, a man underwent a surgical procedure in a hospital, and a drain was inserted into him, a common procedure to allow drainage of excess fluids. A nurse eventually removed the drain. The man began experiencing intense pain for days afterward. What he didn’t know then, but eventually learned, was that a portion of the drainage tube had dislodged, and remained inside of his body.

The man sued the hospital. He was supported by Florida law, which provides that when an object is left someone, it’s assumed that there was negligence just by the mere fact that an object was left inside of them. This is known as the foreign body instruction. When a jury is given the instruction, a victim doesn’t have to prove negligence. It’s proven by having an object left inside of him. It’s on the defendant—in this case, the hospital—to demonstrate that there was no negligence.

He of course sought to have the jury instructed on that very law. But the hospital contended that the foreign body instruction wasn’t applicable where an injured party knows who the negligent party is. Rather, the hospital contended, the instruction is only for victims who have no idea who the negligent party is, for example, when someone wakes up from surgery and has an item in him. He may have no idea who put it there, who left it there, how it got there, etc. Here, of course, the man knew that if anyone was negligent, it was the nurse. Thus, the hospital argued, the foreign body instruction, which would presume its negligence, shouldn’t apply.

The trial court agreed with the hospital, refused to instruct the jury on the law, and a verdict against the victim and in favor of the hospital was entered. An appeal followed.

Court Limits When Instruction is Used

The appellate court, in reviewing the instruction, determined that it was intended for situations where generally someone is unconscious, and sustains an injury that’s not normally associated with, or which could ever be caused by, the medical procedure itself. An example would be waking up from surgery with a burn.

Conversely, poor medical results, and even negligence, are determined by a standard negligence inquiry, and do not require the foreign body instruction that the victim here was seeking. The same applies where a victim knows who the responsible, negligent party would be, and generally how the injury occurred.

Here, the victim knew that the nurse was negligent. The victim knew how the injury occurred—a piece of a tube being left inside of him. The victim was conscious, unlike if he was in surgery. The victim could, and did, make a direct negligence case against the hospital.

Thus, if anything, the appellate court felt that the case would have to be one of normal, medical malpractice, and that the victim could not get the foreign body jury instruction that he asked the trial court to apply.

Medical Malpractice can take different shapes and forms, and the law may apply differently to each. Talk to the Miami personal injury attorneys at Gerson & Schwartz, P.A. today for a free consultation about your malpractice case to understand your rights if you are injured by a medical provider or facility.

Photo Credit: Andy G via Compfight cc

In many cases, being on the top of a best or worst-of list, can be bad news. That’s the case for Florida, which was recently ranked in a study as being the worst state in which to get into a car accident. That’s right, including Washington D.C., Florida was 51 of 51.


Study Evaluates Insurance Issues

The study was based on both the kinds of insurance required by a state, and the percentage of drivers that were driving, illegally or not, without any insurance. The study also took into consideration what kinds and what limits of insurance are required by drivers to be carried. Many states have no insurance requirements at all.

Maine was ranked the best, with just under 5% of its residents driving without insurance. And at the bottom was Florida, with 23% of drivers travelling the roadways with no insurance. Oklahoma actually has close to 26% of its drivers uninsured, more than Florida, but finished ahead of Florida, because its minimum insurance limits are higher than Florida’s.

Also at the bottom were Mississippi and New Mexico, with uninsured rates in the 20th percentiles. California was 47th, with only 14.7% driving uninsured, but its minimum limits are even lower than Florida’s, lowering its rating.

Florida only requires personal injury protection (PIP). Other kinds of coverage are optional, but in many states, uninsured motorist coverage or bodily injury coverage is required.

Why Insured Drivers Matter

It’s best not to get in an accident where a driver has no insurance. Unless you are in an accident involving a vehicle owned by a large corporation, where insurance is not as much as an issue, when you are hit by an individual, insurance is usually what helps compensate you for your injuries. This is why when there is insurance involved, an injured party doesn’t have to worry whether or not the other driver can pay a verdict or settlement.

In many cases, if you are hit by an individual driver without insurance, there is no pocket for you to get any reparation. That includes payment for the damage to your car, or for your own injuries.

Your personal injury protection (PIP) can help with some of your expenses, but will only cover actual medical bills—not pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, or other emotional hardship. Many PIP policies also have deductibles, which you could have to pay if the other side has no insurance.

Safe Drivers and Insured Drivers

There is no reason to say that just because someone drives without insurance, they’re not a safe driver. But certainly, there is an aspect of responsibility to carrying insurance (especially where its legally required), and someone who doesn’t do so may not be someone you want to be sharing the road with.

Unfortunately, there appear to be a lot of those kinds of people in Florida.

Car accidents can be devastating, and often involve severe disruption to your life. Talk to the Miami personal injury attorneys at Gerson & Schwartz, P.A. today for a free consultation about your Miami injury case and make sure you get proper compensation for your injuries.

Photo Credit: dfirecop via Compfight cc

It’s pretty basic that when you are litigating a case involving personal injuries, you need evidence to prove your case in court. In fact, much of what happens before trial involves disputes over what evidence can be obtained and which evidence the negligent defendant is not required to produce.


One category that doesn’t have to be produced is known as “work product.” This term has a specific legal definition, but in practical terms, anything deemed work product may be very difficult for you to obtain to prove your case.

What is Work Product?

Work product generally includes documents that are made in anticipation of litigation. The most classic form of work product is an incident report.

If you slip and fall on a business premises, you may notice the employees filling out documents about the incidents. They may ask you what happened, take pictures, and get information from witnesses. This document is an incident report.

Logically, if you sue for your injuries, you might think that the incident report is a pretty important document needed to prove your case, and that the defendant should have to turn the report over. Clients often request their attorneys get the report as evidence of what actually happened, especially when there is a factual dispute with the other side. But the incident report is created by a business in anticipation of litigation, and thus is generally protected from disclosure.

Another common dispute is over past incidents—for example, how many people have fallen in the store (or in an area) in the past? Again, documents created memorializing those past incidents will often be considered work product, and an injured party may not be able to obtain that information.

The Broad Scope of Work Product

Work product includes almost any kind of document created in anticipation of litigation, even if at the time the document was created there was no litigation threatened or pending.

The information doesn’t have to be gathered by the company’s attorney. A document doesn’t have to be “confidential” to be work product, and a report that is given to corporate departments that are not related to litigation can still be work product. Internal investigation by a company, even if done for risk management purposes, may also be work product.

When Incident Reports and Work Product Can be Obtained

In some cases, an injured party can obtain documents that are considered work product. To do so, a party has to show that the information is needed, and that it can’t get the information anywhere else.

That may seem like an easy burden. But if an injured party can, for example, get information about the accident through depositions, a court may say that it doesn’t need work product documents from the defendant. In one case, because a defendant provided a list of prior accidents on its premises, a court ruled that the actual documents memorializing prior accidents couldn’t be turned over.

Also, simply saying you need documents “to prove your case” won’t be enough. A party needs to specifically state what it is about their case they can’t prove without the requested information, and why that’s vital to winning.

Slip and fall accidents can be highly disputed, and winning may depend on getting sensitive and contested information. Talk to the Miami personal injury attorneys at Gerson & Schwartz, P.A. today for a free consultation about your Miami injury case and make sure you have attorneys that will fight to get all the evidence you need.

Photo Credit: cavale via Compfight cc

When we think of medical errors, we usually think of medical malpractice, or errors by other medical providers or facilities. We don’t often think of pharmacists. But where a medication creates an adverse effect—including death—it’s important for someone who is injured to consider the liability that a pharmacist may have.


When Pharmacists are Liable

Suits against pharmacist may include:

  • Allegations that a pharmacist should have known a drug was contaminated or expired;
  • Allegations that a pharmacist should have known that a patient was getting too much medication. This often arises in cases of pain killers, or controlled substances.
  • Allegations that a pharmacist should have known that a particular medication would be dangerous to a patient with a given medical history, or who is also taking another medication which may not work well with the medicine prescribed.

Generally, a pharmacist who sells a drug legally warrants the following:

  • (S)he is giving the drug actually prescribed;
  • (S)he has used care in filling the prescription (failure of which might also give rise to an action in negligence);
  • (S)he has compounded the medication properly, if applicable; and
  • The drug is free from any foreign substances that shouldn’t be in there.

It is the second requirement that has given rise to the most litigation. The most frequent allegations against a pharmacist are usually analyzed according to whether a pharmacist acts with the same due care and prudence as a similar pharmacist, in the same circumstance or situation.

Analyzing Pharmacist Liability

Obviously, pharmacists are not privy to the same information that your doctor is. The pharmacist doesn’t have access to your medical records, or medical history (other than medications you are or have taken). Thus, the ability to impute knowledge on a pharmacist is difficult, and the types of situations a pharmacist can be liable for may be somewhat limited.

Surely, a pharmacist won’t be liable for things he just can’t possibly know. If your doctor prescribes you the wrong medicine, or too much of it, your pharmacist has no idea. He doesn’t know what’s “right” for you based on your medical history, and is in no position to second guess your doctor.

But some errors are apparent. For example, medications have expiration dates on their labels. A pharmacist surely knows not to prescribe them.

Similarly, a reasonable pharmacist likely knows how much of a medication may be too much, and cannot just blindly fill legitimate medical prescriptions. Patients coming in for early refills, or multiple refills, are a clue to the pharmacist that there may be a problem. For example, you don’t need to be the treating doctor to know when too much Oxycodone is being filled by the patient, and the pharmacist likely has an obligation to refuse to fill the prescription—even if the doctor’s prescription is otherwise valid.

Suits against pharmacists are not common, but in cases where medication has caused injury, it’s always important to examine what the pharmacist knew and should have known. In many cases, a pharmacist is a potential defendant with liability for injuries.

Medication mistakes can have devastating and catastrophic effects. Talk to the Miami personal injury attorneys at Gerson & Schwartz, P.A. today for a free consultation about your malpractice case to make sure all possible defendants are identified.

We’ve written in the past about the civil aspects of crime. A huge area of negligent security case law derives from crime that occurs at apartment complexes. Landlords aren’t insurers of tenant safety, but surely have an obligation to do what they can to keep foreseeable crime out of the complex, and provide basic safety measures for tenants to help prevent injuries.


A recent case decided by the Florida Supreme Court emphasizes how important nuanced facts are to negligent security cases. In the end, the court made a ruling that makes it a bit easier for victims to obtain reparation for injuries caused by a landlord’s failure to provide adequate safety.

Murder in an Apartment Complex Leads to Lawsuit

The case involves a seemingly secure apartment complex, surrounded almost entirely by water, except for a main gate. Units had alarm systems, and the complex had reasonable lighting, peepholes on the doors, and other basic security measures.

But when two residents were shot inside their units by an intruder, a lawsuit was filed for negligent security. The lawsuit eventually revealed that the main gate had been broken into a number of times in the past, leading to robberies and assaults. Additionally, the gate was not working properly at the time of these murders.

At trial, a jury found the complex 40% responsible, and awarded the victim’s estate over $4 million.

The appeal focused on the question of how the intruders got into the apartment. There was some indication that they may not have gotten in by force—that is, that they may not have been random prowlers, but someone known to the victims or allowed entry by the victims.

Thus, the complex argued on appeal, that because it was never ascertained how the intruders gained entry, it was error to enter a judgment against the complex for negligent security. In other words, there was no proof of causation.

The complex also contended that there was no foreseeability because there was insufficient evidence that there had been any prior crimes of such violence, such to put the complex on notice of the danger.

Supreme Court Finds Jury Was Correct

The case made it to the Florida Supreme Court. The court first clarified that proximate cause means that “it is more likely than not” that the negligence caused the injury complained of. The court took note of the long string of crimes on the property, including strong armed robberies, and other crimes where people had gained access, which indicated the gate clearly was keeping nobody out.

Although there was no evidence as to how entry was gained in this case, the court felt that given the long criminal history on the property, it was fair for a jury to make the inference the intruders gained access via the broken gate.

The court acknowledged that it was possible that the victims had voluntarily allowed the assailants in. However, that was an issue for the jury, which they decided in favor of the victims, and the court was unwilling to disrupt that finding on appeal.

Negligent security cases can involve catastrophic injuries, and complex facts. Talk to the Miami personal injury attorneys at Gerson & Schwartz, P.A. today for a free consultation about your negligent security case if you have been a victim of crime.

The Florida Supreme Court, in an important decision, has changed the way that so-called exculpatory clauses are interpreted. Its decision unfortunately broadens the effectiveness of these agreements, and thus, makes it harder for those catastrophically injured by the negligence of a business, or while on a business premises, to recover damages.

Exculpatory clauses are the contracts that you often sign that purport to waive any liability for the business for any injury that you sustain. They are often used on cruises, in gyms, in kids play areas, and in extreme sports. Simply put, you are agreeing not to sue the business if you’re injured when you’re there, or taking part in an activity.


Mother Injured on Vacation Starts Dispute Over Liability Release

The Sanislo family took their daughter on a vacation, provided by a non-profit organization that provided “dream” vacations for sick or disabled children. Part of the vacation included a horse carriage ride. The ride had a lift, where wheelchairs could be lifted into the carriages. The mother of the injured girl stood on the lift while the wheelchair was on it, and the lift broke due to excess weight, injuring the mother.

The vacation company required the family to sign a comprehensive exculpatory clause before they went on vacation. The clause made them agree not to sue for any injuries that occurred for any reason. The agreement did not specifically say that the Sanislos could not sue in the event of the vacation company’s own negligence.

Because that language wasn’t there, the Sanislos argued, and the trial court agreed, the release did not bar their suit. A verdict was entered in favor of the Sanislos, and an appeal ensued.

Court Interprets What the Release Covers

At the appeal, the company argued that although the agreement didn’t specifically include exculpation for the company’s own negligence acts, the language of the agreement was clear enough and broad enough to cover such negligence. Thus, they argued, the verdict should be overturned, and the Sanislos forbidden from recovering anything.

The appellate court acknowledged that these kinds of releases are not favored by public policy. The court also agreed that the law has long required specific language releasing negligence to be in these agreements, but also said that the exact word “negligence” wasn’t required for an exculpation clause to be effective. The court felt that if the Sanislos release didn’t include release of negligent claims, it would be effectively useless because there would be nothing else to release.

Under a basic contractual analysis, the exculpatory clause was clear, unambiguous, and the intent of the parties was to release liability for negligent acts, even if the word “negligence” wasn’t actually specifically used.

Decision May Make Many Releases Enforceable

The court did say that this did not mean that any exculpatory clause would be enforceable, and that such agreements still had to be specific and clear to be enforceable. Still, the decision now leaves a huge opening for businesses to use releases, often containing confusing or ambiguous language, to defend liability cases on the basis of these kinds of agreements.

Agreements that you sign could make it more difficult to sue for injuries. Make sure you have attorneys that know how to read, interpret and counter, these kinds of releases. Talk to the Miami personal injury attorneys at Gerson & Schwartz, P.A. today for a free consultation about your injury case.

Photo Credit: Steve and Sara via Compfight cc

It seems that more cars including additional GM products are facing recalls based on design and manufacturing defects. Some of the problems are those that could potentially cause serious or catastrophic injury, reminding us that often our vehicles may not be as safe as we believe they are, and that it’s important to pay attention to the recall notices in the news. The Miami personal injury lawyers at Gerson & Schwartz, P.A. are keeping a close eye in the wake of the latest  General Motors recall fiasco.


Airbags a Big Recall Target

The rumor is true, that often an airbag can cause as much injury as a crash itself. Still, airbags often save lives, and are an important protective tool for drivers.

Jeep, which is owned by GM, is now recalling 200,000 Jeep Cherokees for faulty airbags. The problem appears to be that the side airbags are deploying even without an impending accident, usually upon heavy offroad driving, which naturally causes the car to bump, shake, and rattle. It is mostly 2014 and 2015 models that are being recalled. The fix is, apparently, a software repair that can be done at a dealership.

This is on the heels of the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration recalling 2 million vehicles for the exact same reason—early airbag deployment. Many of these involved manufacturer fixes of earlier recalls, that did not fix the problems.

The impact sensors on the airbags on many of these cars now must be completely replaced. Some of the vehicles involved are Toyotas and Hondas, where the airbag doesn’t just deploy without an impact, but actually may explode fragments of debris outward. The model years are 2002-2004.

In an opposite problem, Jaguar Land Rover is now recalling vehicles because their airbags may not deploy when lighter individuals are seated in passenger seats. The problem was discovered when passengers noticed the “airbag disabled” light was on when they were sitting in the seat.

Numerous Porsches and Audis (all owned by Volkswagen) have also been recalled for fuel leak problems, and 100,000 Range Rovers and Jaguars were recently recalled for brake fluid leakage problems.

Pay Attention to Recall Notices

If you are driving a vehicle that has been recalled, it is vitally important to have the recall taken care of. As you can see, many of the recalls involve parts of your vehicle that could cause major injury if you are involved in a crash (or not involved in one, as the airbag issue demonstrates).

If you fail to have a recall taken care of, end up injured as a result of a design defect or manufacturing in your vehicle that could have been fixed in the recall, and end up filing a personal injury lawsuit, the other side could deny you payment on the basis that you failed to attend to the recall.

There may be many causes including product liability issues in motor vehicle accidents, and many causes may even take an expert to discover. If you or a loved one were seriously injured in an accident contact the  Miami personal injury lawyers at Gerson & Schwartz, P.A. today for a free consultation about your injury case.


14627840535_7cff54df64If you are injured in an accident, and the negligent party was drunk and under the influence of alcohol, it may appear that your case is a slam dunk. Generally speaking from a liability standpoint this may be true.  However, collecting from the insurance company for the full amount of your damages may not be as simple as you think. Some insurance policies have exclusions for certain acts.  This means the insurance company may not be required to cover an insured’s negligence  such as an intentional act, or if there is a claim that arises based on conduct that is  excluded or not covered under the insurance plan language. This can include a claim that arises out of a fight in a night club, use of alcohol, or even for punitive damages such as an insured in a drunk driving accident. These exclusions are common in premises liability cases, such as bars, nightclubs, and other commercial property insurance policies. For these reasons, it is always a good idea to ask for a free consultation with a personal injury lawyer in Miami to discuss if any of these potential issues may apply to your case.

Recent Case Enforces Alcohol Exclusion

This does not mean that the tort feasor is entirely off the hook. Injury victims can always pursue legal action regardless of insurance that is available. It just means that the an action to collect some or all of a  judgment for claims that are not covered under insurance may have to come directly from the at fault party, as opposed to the insurance company. However, the reality of collecting against an uninsured or under insured  defendant directly just may not make sense.

In other instances, alternative theories of legal liability and claims may be filed against other potential defendants and another way to avoid these legal pitfalls that may get in the way of justice. Some insurance policies are written with exclusions from liquor liability, such as alcohol, or serving of alcohol to minors, for assault and battery exclusions, and even dog bites. These exclusions may affect an injured persons ability to collect from the insurance policy itself.

In a recent case, a man was killed when he carelessly, and while under the influence of alcohol, was operating a jet ski. The insurance company denied his beneficiary’s claim to the proceeds of a life insurance policy, citing the policy’s exclusion of payment for any loss that occurred while the insured was under the influence of alcohol.

Although the beneficiary admitted that the deceased was intoxicated, an expert testified that the alcohol wasn’t the main cause of the accident. Thus, the beneficiary argued, the proceeds of the policy should be paid.

The appellate court disagreed, noting that even if alcohol wasn’t the primary cause of the accident, it was a contributing cause. The court, absent much data, concluded that it was simply a well-known fact that alcohol contributes to accidents of all kinds.

Because exclusion policies have been enforced so long as alcohol played “some” role in an accident, the appellate court agreed that the policy did not cover the incident.  Any causal relationship, even a slight one, between alcohol and an accident was enough to activate a policy’s alcohol exclusion provisions. Business owners, operators and other may want to inquire. What losses am I really being protected from?

Why The Case is Important

You may wonder why you should care what someone’s insurance policy paid their beneficiaries. The reason is because if a liability policy contains the same exclusion, there may be no insurance coverage to compensate you if that person injures you.

If you are injured by Wal-Mart or Publix, insurance coverage may not matter; those companies can pay a judgment without insurance. But if you are injured by a driver, or at someone’s home, collecting a judgment can be a challenge without insurance coverage. Your judgment may even be discharged if the negligent party files for bankruptcy.

Insurance companies know the problems that arise when uninsured individuals injure others. Thus, they will often use any excuse they can to avoid defending or paying for a claim. The injured victim may be in the position of arguing that the negligent person should be afforded insurance coverage, so the victim has someone to collect a judgment from.

When courts make decisions like this one, which provide loopholes and weaken the force of insurance policies, it’s not just the insureds who suffer—it’s those that they injure that may suffer as well.

If you are injured, you want injury attorneys that understand all potential legal issues, including legal liability, insurance coverage issues, and financial responsibility. Talk to a lawyer at the Miami personal injury law firm of Gerson & Schwartz, P.A. today for a free consultation or visit

If you file a lawsuit to recover damages for injuries you sustain, in most cases, you can expect to be called to sit for deposition. Movies and TV have ingrained in us that depositions are scary things. But if you’re properly prepared, and understand how the process works, depositions are nothing to be nervous or concerned about.


What to Expect

As an initial warning, this is general advice only. Every case is different, and a good attorney will prepare you for deposition questions that may be specific to your case and your history.

A deposition is simply a process where attorneys from the other side ask you questions about your accident, your health, and to some extent, about your history. Your attorney will be there, but generally, can’t speak or answer questions for you, and you won’t be able to secretly confer with your lawyer before answering a question.

There will also be a court reporter there, transcribing everything you say for the record. It is important that you are clear, and that you say exactly what you will say at any trial down the road.

In most cases, opposing attorneys are cordial and polite when asking you questions. There is an impression that the attorney’s questions are intended to fool you or that questions have a secret, hidden legal meaning. This usually isn’t the case, and again, your attorney should let you know beforehand about any such questions.

The Questions at Deposition

Most questions are not very invasive. The most invasive questions usually concern your past health or medical history, and any prior lawsuits you may have been involved in, if any. Of course, if there is something very sensitive that you are concerned about discussing, you should tell your attorney beforehand so those issues can be dealt with.

The bulk of the questions will usually involve the accident itself, and your treatment or recovery from any injuries. Be aware that if the other side has surveillance video of the accident or of your daily activities after the accident, you often will not have the opportunity to review it before your deposition.

The deposition also is the other side’s opportunity to evaluate you as a witness. Are you likeable? Well spoken? Can you confidently relay what’s happened to you? Again, your attorney will give you pointers in improving in these areas.

Don’t Fear Depositions

Many injury victims actually enjoy depositions, and find them cathartic. The deposition is your chance to tell the other side exactly how your life has been affected. After months or years of having an attorney speak for you, you now get the chance to speak for yourself, and explain in your own words what the accident has done to you.

In many cases, depositions can lead to settlements, avoiding the necessity of trial. Think of it as a necessary but important step in the process of getting justice and fair reparation for your injuries.

Injury lawsuits can be involved processes, but aren’t difficult or fearful with the right attorneys by your side. Talk to the Miami personal injury attorneys at Gerson & Schwartz, P.A. today for a free consultation about your injury case.

Photo Credit: Kris Krug via Compfight cc