Miami Injury Lawyer Blog

This past March, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals tackled an important issue in the case of Smith v. Llamas, addressing the inquiry as to whether a Florida car accident victim’s injuries are temporary or permanent and if this question should be answered by a jury. The Court ultimately held that the permanency of injuries is a question of fact, and, as such, is the sole province of the jury.

In Smith, Fernando Llamas was injured in car accident when his vehicle collided with that of Shana Smith. Llamas sued Smith for negligence, claiming that that he had suffered significant injuries to his neck and knee in the accident. Smith maintained that she was only partially responsible for the collision and, pursuant to Florida's comparative negligence doctrine, her liability must be reduced by the proportion of Llamas’ liability.

At trial, Llamas presented expert testimony by a neurosurgeon stating that Llamas' neck injury was permanent due to the fact that surgery could not completely eliminate the injury. In rebuttal, Smith’s expert, an orthopedic surgeon, testified that Llamas’ neck injury was not permanent and was not caused by the accident.

Llamas had another doctor testify that his knee injury was permanent and caused by the accident, however, Smith argued that the doctor’s conclusion was based on an inconsistent and inaccurate medical history that was provided by Llamas.

After trial, a jury determined that Smith was entirely liable for the accident and awarded Llamas approximately $40,000 in damages, for past medical expenses. The jury concluded that Llamas' injuries were not permanent and therefore did not award any future medical expenses. Llamas moved for a new trial, arguing that the evidence presented at trial established that he had sustained permanent injuries related to the crash. The trial court agreed and granted Llamas a new trial.

On appeal, the Second District reversed the trial court, holding that the trial court had abused its discretion by setting aside the jury verdict. Florida law states that, to set aside a jury verdict, it must be so unjust to warrant a new trial and "the evidence must be clear, obvious, and indisputable.”

Citing this standard, the Court opined that there was "conflicting evidence on whether Llamas sustained a permanent neck injury in the accident” and the jury could have properly determined that “Llamas did not sustain any knee injury as a result of the accident in light of evidence that he provided an inaccurate medical history and did not seek treatment for a knee injury until eight months after the accident.”

The degree and permanency of a victim’s injuries are often one of the most hotly contested issues that arise with regard to motor vehicle accident cases. The Miami car accident attorneys of Gerson and Schwartz have extensive experience representing individuals who have been injured in car accidents. If you or someone you know has been injured by the negligence of another, contact us today.

Earlier this year, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals addressed the question as to liability of a co-owner of a vehicle for injuries caused by the negligent driving of the car’s other owner. In Ortiz v. Regalado, Andy Ortiz (“Andy”) was driving a car which he co-owned with his father when he collided with the vehicle of Lourdes Falcon, killing Ms. Falcon’s daughter who was a passenger.

Ms. Falcon filed a lawsuit, claiming that Andy was negligent in causing the accident and that his father was vicariously liable for Andy’s negligence as joint owner of the vehicle. As this blog has discussed before, vicarious liability, or respondeat superior, is a legal theory under which the superior, in this case Andy’s father, is held liable for the acts of his or her subordinate, in this case Andy.

After a trial, a jury found that Andy and Ms. Falcon were each 50% at fault for the accident and awarded Ms. Falcon a judgment for approximately $1.4 million in damages. Under Florida’s comparative negligence law, each party to an accident is held proportionately liable for damages resulting from his or her negligence. Accordingly, the court ordered Andy and his father jointly liable to pay half of the $1.4 million judgment.

On appeal, Andy’s father argued that he was not involved in the accident and should not be held liable merely because he was a co-owner of the vehicle. Andy’s father contended that he was entitled to a reduction in the damages under section 324.021(9)(b)(3) of the Florida Statutes, which sets a limit on damages for which an owner of a vehicle is responsible when the owner loans the vehicle to another whose negligent operation of the vehicle results in damages to another.

In rejecting this argument, the Court recognized that, although the law limits damages for the owner of a vehicle when the owner loans the vehicle to another, in this case, Andy’s father did not loan the car to Andy, rather Andy was lawfully driving the vehicle as its joint owner. The Court opined that, "An owner of an object can only loan that object to another who has no legal right to the object,” concluding that because the language of 324.021(9)(b)(3) is clear and unambiguous, the Court was required to give it its plain and obvious meaning.

Although the Court rejected the argument of Andy’s father, it acknowledged that the term "loans," was not defined in the statute. Accordingly, the Court further held that, “[b]ecause vicarious liability is of major concern to the citizens of Florida” it was necessary to certify a question to the Florida Supreme Court as to whether the damages limit under 324.021(9)(b)(3) should apply to vehicle co-owners.

Given the fact that thousands of vehicles on Florida’s roadways are co-owned, the Ortiz decision, as well as any subsequent decision by the Florida Supreme Court, is of particular importance to both plaintiffs and defendants alike.

The Miami personal injury attorneys of Gerson and Schwartz, P.A. have extensive experience representing individuals who have been injured in car accidents. If you or someone you know has been injured by the negligence of another, contact the attorneys of Gerson and Schwartz, P.A. today.

Previously, this blog discussed the elements of product liability claims as they relate to recalls by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“USPSC”) of various defective consumer products. Many times the circumstances associated with product liability claims spur attorneys to use a unique legal device to obtain recovery when multiple individuals have been injured.

When a sufficiently large number of people are injured by a product that was defectively manufactured or designed, the group’s legal claims may be pursued by means of a “class action” lawsuit.

A class action lawsuit is a type of legal claim that groups multiple individuals together so they can litigate their claims as one. In order to commence such an action, however, the class must first be certified by the court in which the lawsuit is filed. To be certified by the Court a class must possess four qualities:

1 Numerosity. Any class must be made up of a sufficient number of claimants. The number must be large enough that it would be impractical for each person to file an individual lawsuit.

If, for instance, three people are injured in a bus crash caused by a defective braking system, it would still be practical for each individual to file their own lawsuit. However, if the same crass injured fifty people, a class action would be the most efficient and reasonable manner in which to handle the claims.

2 Adequacy. All classes are required to identify an individual or individual(s) as the representative(s) of the class. The representative(s) must epitomize the legal interests of the other class members.

3 Commonality. A class action’s members must have common legal and factual claims. Take the bus crash example discussed above. If a number of people were injured in the bus crash, that group of individuals would have common legal and factual claims based on the facts and circumstances of a single event.

4 Typicality. The class representative(s)’ legal and factual claims must be characteristic of the claims of all the class members. Class representatives must “possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.” General Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon.
The absence of any of these four qualities will result in the reviewing court to decline certification of the class. If, however, the class is successful in obtaining certification, there are additional steps it must take before commencing litigation.

First, all potential class members must be notified as to the existence of the action and the nature of the claim. This notice has to describe the action and provide the potential class members an opportunity to “opt out", or elect not to participate, of the class. Similarly, if a settlement of the class action is proposed, all members must be advised of the terms of the settlement and again given the chance to opt out.

The qualified Miami product liability attorneys of Gerson and Schwartz, P.A. have extensive experience representing groups of individuals in the context of class actions who have suffered personal injury as the result of the negligence of another. If you or someone you know has been harmed by someone else’s negligent conduct, contact the attorneys of Gerson and Schwartz, P.A. today

Violent criminals belong behind bars and their innocent victims need professional help. A qualified victims’ rights lawyer can assist. The world has been watching as the lives of 3 women have been revealed, after being abducted and held against their will for almost 10 years, by an alleged perpetrator in Cleveland, Ohio. The crimes committed against these women are unthinkable and devastating to their families and to the world at large. Justice must be served. The alleged perpetrator, 52 year old, Ariel Castro, is facing possible death penalty charges, and at the very least life in prison for his crimes of sexual violence and kidnapping against 3 innocent women. Castro is also being charged for the kidnapping of his own 6 year old child who was conceived as a result of the rape he committed against one of his kidnapping victims, Amanda Berry.

The crimes committed against these 3 innocent women include kidnapping, sexual assault and rape, as well as physical and psychological abuse. Castro may even face murder charges for the murder of 5 unborn fetuses, after he allegedly physically starved and beat one of his captives who became pregnant 5 times due to his raping her. Michelle Knight is thought to have suffered 5 miscarriages, due to Castro’s beatings and imposed starvation on the pregnant woman. Since, the death penalty is legal in the state of Ohio, where the crimes were committed, it is possible that Castro will in fact, face the death penalty, eventually.

Crime victim attorneys at Gerson and Schwartz PA have been handling cases of traumatic physical, sexual abuse and rape for victims alike and are experienced representing crime victims and their families and recovering civil awards for them through the Florida Justice System. The crime victims’ rights lawyers at Gerson & Schwartz are experienced at handling cases of a personal and sensitive nature making them among the most qualified, crime victim attorneys in the state of Florida. Gerson & Schwartz knows how to effectively bring claims against all negligible parties who may have contributed to the duress and permanent scars that crime victims like these 3 women in Ohio have endured.

If you or someone you love has been the victim of a violent sexual crime and is seeking restitution against responsible parties, contact the Miami, Florida personal injury law firm of Gerson & Schwartz, PA today for an immediate consultation. Call (305)371-6000 or info@gslawusa.com . Appointments are always free of charge and help is only a phone call away.

Texting while driving is a rampant problem across the US, which often times leads to catastrophic car accidents. The state of Florida is one of the only remaining states who had not yet passed a law banning texting while driving, until now. The senate has approved and passed Bill 52 making texting a secondary violation for drivers, who are cited for a primary driving infraction. If it is discovered, that a driver is typing on any device whatsoever, he or she will receive an additional citation for this, now illegal activity.

Statistics indicate that thousands of teens and adults are killed each year due to texting and driving. Miami auto accident attorneys, as well as law enforcement deal with these critical cases on a regular basis. The dangers of distracted driving have been proven over and over again throughout the world. According to Distraction.Gov, drivers who use a hand held device are 4 times more likely to get into life threatening car accidents. Sending a text or an email can take a driver’s eyes of the road for an average of 4.6 seconds, resulting in serious car accidents that cause injury to drivers, passengers and pedestrians, alike.

Personal injury attorneys Nicholas and Philip Gerson have seen firsthand what can happen when a careless driver is holding the wheel and a hand held device at the same time. They have handled numerous cases in which a driver who sent a quick text or email caused serious harm to their clients. Wrongful death cases or cases of catastrophic injuries are the result of driver negligence.

If drivers were not otherwise distracted, they would have been paying closer attention to the road. Texting or sending emails while driving takes the driver out of the moment and away from noticing the street signs, lights, or innocent pedestrians. Frequently, teen agers who are new drivers are easily distracted by texting while driving. Due to their young age and inexperience, children’s slower reflexes become a handicap for them while navigating the road. 11 teenage drivers die every day in the US due to texting and driving.

Continue reading "No Texting While Driving Passes in Florida Senate" »

Typically, when a person is injured in a car accident, the insurance company of the at-fault party will step in and attempt to settle the dispute on behalf of its insured. Sometimes, however, the insurance company is unable or unwilling to settle the claim, forcing the injured party to sue. The injured party may later receive a judgment against the insured party that exceeds the amount of the insured’s coverage, leaving him or her on the hook to the injured person for the full amount of the award less what was covered by under the insurance policy.

Under Florida law, bad faith claims allow the insured to sue his or her insurance company to recover the difference between the limit of coverage and the amount of the judgment if the insurance company acted in “bad faith” in attempting to settle the injured party’s claims. Last month, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, issued an opinion in the case of Markel American Insurance Company v. Flugga discussing the elements of a bad faith claim and the elements necessary to establish such a cause of action.

In Flugga, Mark Flugga was found to be at fault for a 2010 motor vehicle accident in which he, his passenger, and two individuals in another vehicle were injured. Flugga's insurance company, Markel American Insurance Company, was notified of the accident four days after it occurred.

At the request of the attorney for Flugga’s passenger, Markel provided information concerning Flugga's coverage in April of 2010. Later, Markel requested information regarding the passenger’s injuries, after which the passenger’s attorney notified Markel that there was a publicly recorded hospital lien for more than $72,000 for hospital bills related to treatment for the passenger’s injuries. The passenger’s attorney also informed Markel that the passenger had filed a lawsuit against Flugga for negligence.

Markel tendered a check to the passenger’s attorney for $10,000, which was the limit of coverage under Flugga’s policy. The check was returned and no further discussion was had regarding settlement. On the day before trial was to commence on the negligence lawsuit against Flugga, Markel filed an action in Federal District Court asking the court to declare that Markel had not acted in "bad faith" in the handling of the passenger’s claim.

The District Court held that, generally, the lack of a settlement offer by itself is not sufficient to prove that an insurer acted in bad faith in handling a claim. The Court further opined that an insurer has an obligation to attempt to negotiate a settlement when liability is clear and the known injuries are sufficiently serious that a judgment would likely exceed the insured’s policy limits.

In applying its analysis to Flugga’s case, the Court concluded , “[G]iven the minimal coverage of $10,000 as compared to the known injuries suffered*** coupled with [the] retention of a lawyer to press [the] claim and the time that elapsed from the date of the accident to the tender of the policy limits, there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether***Markel American acted in bad faith.” The Court then dismissed the action, maintaining that the bad faith issue could properly be litigated in the state court action.

In a car accident where the liability is obvious and the damages are in excess of the policy and if the insurance company fails to settle the case for less than case value, you too may have a a bad faith claim under Florida law. The Miami, Florida personal injury attorneys of Gerson and Schwartz, P.A. have extensive experience representing individuals who have been injured in car accidents and are forced to deal with insurance companies. If you or someone you know feel your insurance company is not acting in good faith to resolve a claim, contact the attorneys of Gerson and Schwartz, P.A. today for a free consultation.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion in the case of Wos v. E.M.A. that protects the rights of those who receive settlements or judgements following an accident. Specifically, the ruling prevents states from taking unnecessary large portions of the award for Medicaid reimbursements.

In WOS a victim of medical malpractice and subsequent Medicaid recipient challenged a North Carolina statute requiring that up to one-third of any settlement recovered by a Medicaid beneficiary be paid to the State as reimbursement for payments made for medical treatment. The victim estimated her damages to exceed $42 million, but she eventually settled the claims for $2.8 million. The state court approved the settlement but put one-third of the recovery into escrow pending a determination as to the amount owed to North Carolina for Medicaid payments.

While the case was pending, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that the irrebuttable statutory one-third presumption was a reasonable method for determining the amount due the State for medical expenses. The Federal District Court that originally heard WOS agreed with the North Carolina Supreme Court, but, on appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of found otherwise. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between the Fourth Circuit and North Carolina Supreme Court.

In a previous case, the Supreme Court held that the federal Medicaid statute sets both a floor and a ceiling on a State’s potential share of a beneficiary’s tort recovery. The Court determined that federal law requires an assignment to the State of “the right to recover that portion of a settlement that represents payments for medical care,” but also “precludes attachment or encumbrance of the remainder of the settlement.”

Unfortunately, the earlier case did not establish how to determine what portion of a settlement constitutes payment for medical care, allowing North Carolina to adopt the statute presuming one-third a recipient’s the recovery represents compensation for medical expenses.
Writing for a 6-3 majority in WOS, Justice Kennedy stated that the statute’s arbitrary determination that one-third of every settlement was reimbursable to Medicaid constituted a violation of the Federal Medicaid anti-lien provision.

Continue reading "United States Supreme Court Strikes Down Arbitrary State Medicaid Recovery Legislation" »

Recently, the National Safety Council (“NSC”), a nonprofit organization dedicated to injury and death prevention, designated the month of April distracted driving awareness month and introduced a plan asking all motorists to participate in remedying this problem plaguing our nation’s roadways.

Distracted driving is becoming an increasingly serious issue across America. Despite a rising number of distracted driving car accidents each year, many states, including Florida, have been slow to adopt measures to curb the problem.

Indeed, Florida has yet to pass any law banning the use or cell phones in any capacity while driving. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have already adopted texting while driving bans and many others have restrictions on cell-phone use. As has been discussed by this blog before, several bills proposing statewide bans on texting while driving have passed through the Florida Senate, but failed in the House of Representatives.

According to recent statistics, of the more than 170,000 crash reports filed in Florida during the first ten months in 2011, over 100 involved motorists that were texting at the time of the accident. That number is almost certainly too low, however, as most driver’s would be reluctant to admit to texting while driving. Studies have found that almost a third of motorists admit to using their to using their cell regularly while driving. Over two-thirds of drivers professed to using their cell phone while driving at least once in the previous month.

Further, according to a 2009 report compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), 5,474 people were killed on U.S. roadways and an estimated additional 448,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes that were reported to have involved distracted drivers. Of the distracted driving crashes resulting in the death of an individual, 995 were reported to involve a cell phone as the distraction. Of the distracted driving crashes resulting in an injury to someone, over 24,000 were reported to involve a cell phone as the distraction.

Continue reading "National Safety Council Designates April As Distracted Driving Awareness Month" »

Earlier this month, The Miami Herald reported on the unfortunate death of a Florida International University student as a result of a hit-and-run accident. Forty-three year-old Melita Jaric was walking across Southwest 11th Street in Miami, Florida, when she was struck by a car driven by an unknown individual.

Jaric suffered serious injuries, including a fractured skull and left arm, as well as experiencing substantial swelling of the brain. Jaric was transported to nearby Jackson Memorial Hospital where she remained in a coma for several days before succumbing to her substantial injuries.

Investigators interviewed neighbors following the incident, many of whom complained that the four-way-stop at the intersection is regularly ignored. According to one resident, “This street has become like a race track. Everybody passes by here. Don’t respect the stop sign.”

Continue reading "Florida International University Student Killed In Miami Hit And Run Accident" »

Florida legislators are considering measures that would repeal Florida's No Fault Benefits, also referred to as Personal Injury Protection. Under the current law, Florida drivers are required to carry up to a total of $10,0000 in coverage. The benefits pays an insured's medical bills and expenses regardless of fault. Currently, the PIP covers up to 80% up to $10,0000 of medical bills and hospital related expenses and up to 60% of wage loss. Once the 10,0000 has been exhausted, accident victims must find other sources such as making a claim against the at fault party. Of course, that assumes the driver of the other vehicle also has coverage for bodily injury. In Florida, unlike many other states, bodily injury coverage is not legally required. Just recently, Florida's PIP laws were changed. Prior to January 1, 2013, there were not as many limitations on personal injury benefits such as who can claim them and under what circumstances. Now, the PIP laws require that injury victims seek medical attention within 14 days of an accident to receive maximum benefits. Other changes to the law require the diagnosis by a medical doctor that an accident victim sustained an "emergency medical condition", among others. The new laws also placed limitations on the types of medical providers that could get paid under PIP. The law now excludes massage therapists and acupuncture all together. The changes, of course were the direct result of insurance companies claiming that the system was being taken advantage of by medical providers and others in car accidents. Attorney referral services and other marketing companies that advertise for car accidents have also been under scrutiny by the Florida Bar. The "savings" argument was that the changes in Florida PIP laws would allow for future lower insurance premiums for all, and that savings would then be passed on to Florida consumers drivers. Of course, that logic and reasoning is now being questioned. In the midst of the new "Affordable Healthcare Act" ready to take effect, law makers are beginning to wonder if personal injury protection benefits will be necessary. Most states, require motor vehicle operators to carry bodily injury insurance. If PIP is repealed in Florida, Florida law would likely require all vehicle owners to carry bodily injury protection as well. Miami, Florida injury attorneys at Gerson and Schwartz, PA believe changes to existing Florida No Fault Laws are a good thing. Since bodily injury coverage is not required in Florida, many accident victims are left with little legal recourse if there is no insurance coverage available. The latest news is that the Florida Senate is considering a bill and other law makers are considering other legislation to address the issue. The bill that is in the works, would repeal Florida's No Fault Benefits. It appears that it may have a chance of being passed by both the house and senate as it appears it has gained much public attention and support.

Continue reading "Florida Senate Considering Bill Repealing Personal Injury Protection Laws" »

Florida lawmakers have passed a new law which was implemented January 1 stating that all drivers from foreign countries (including Canada) must have an International Driver’s License to operate a vehicle in Florida. Many of our clients have been seeking the advice of a personal injury lawyer in Ottawa to help them determine whether they would be covered in the event of an accident if they were driving in Florida without an International License.

Victims of motor vehicle accidents seeking a lawyer in Toronto may want to consult with the head office of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which has recently issued a statement indicating that they’ve asked insurance companies to conduct business in the same way as they have to date, therefore protecting all Canadians if such an unfortunate event should arise.

On their end, the Florida Highway Patrol has indicated they will not be enforcing the new law as it is subject to review due to potential conflict with international agreements.

The Canadian issuers of the International Driver’s Permits have asked the State of Florida to change the law so that it does not apply to Canadians. We’re wondering what Florida accident attorneys such as the Miami Personal Injury law firm of Gerson & Schwartz , PA think of all this. In the meantime, we at Intraligi Law Firm would advise all our Canadian friends to obtain an IDP just to be safe before their next trip to Florida. Despite assurances to the contrary, you don’t want to have a car accident and then hear a police officer tell you you’re driving without a valid license, or worse yet, your insurance company. The last time we checked, the CAA website indicated the fee for such a license is $25. The annoying part is that you have to go get those passport photos taken before you can apply.

Stephan Intraligi, Hon.B.A., J.D., Esq.

Mr. Intraligi is a personal injury lawyer in Toronto, and also offers consultations as an injury lawyer in Ottawa to all victims of car accidents, slip and falls and all other type of personal injury related matters.

On March 2, 2013, FloridaToday.com reported on the unfortunate death of two Brevard County teens that were killed in a car accident caused by a suspected drunk driver. On February 28, 2013, Rachel Price, 18, and a passenger, Jamaree Cook, 19, were traveling west on U.S. 192 near St. Cloud, Florida when an oncoming pickup truck cut in front Price. Price’s vehicle collided with the pickup and then hit another vehicle stopped at the intersection, killing both Price and Cook. The driver of the pickup was arrested at the scene on suspicion of driving while intoxicated.

This unfortunate incident highlights a continuing problem of negligent and reckless drivers on Florida’s roadways. Because it is impossible to completely safeguard oneself from negligent drivers, it is important that motorists be aware that in the event they are injured in a car accident caused by the negligence or recklessness of another they have a right to compensation and in some instances punitive damages. Punitive damages are not recoverable in every case. Under Florida law, there first be a be a proffer of evidence in the record before a claim for punitive damages can even be included as part of a personal injury lawsuit.

Continue reading "Victims Of Drunk Drivers Entitlement to Punitive Damages in Florida " »