Miami Injury Lawyer Blog

According to a study released late last year by the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, approximately four thousand surgical "never events" occur annually in the United States. The study defines “never events" as those incidents for which there is universal professional agreement that should never occur during a surgery. The study, run by associate professor of surgery Dr. Marty Makary, attempts to quantify the extent of medical malpractice that occurs on a weekly basis across America.

According to the study’s estimations, a foreign object is left inside a patient during an operation thirty-nine times every week, an incorrect procedure is performed twenty times every week, and the wrong body part is operated on twenty times every week. The study also approximates that a staggering 80,000 never events have taken place in hospitals from 1990 to 2010, however, the actual quantity of such occurrences is likely higher.

Using the National Practitioner Data Bank (“NPDB”), a federal database comprised of medical malpractice claims, the study analyzed nearly 10,000 medical malpractice judgments that were paid out between 1990 and 2010. With this data, the study was able to estimate that never events happen in the United States at a rate of 4,044 per year. The NPDB data compiled by researchers revealed that malpractice judgments and claims totaled $1.3 billion during the period covered by the study. In the cases studied, death occurred in 6.6% of patients, permanent injury in 32.9%, and temporary injury in 59.2%.

When asked about the results of the study, Makary recognized that, although some errors in the administration of health care are inevitable, “[T]he events we've estimated are totally preventable. This study highlights that we are nowhere near where we should be and there's a lot of work to be done."

As this blog has discussed before, physicians, hospitals, and other medical professionals owe their patients a duty to act with a certain level of care. Never events are the type of error that occurs when these medical professionals fail to satisfy their duty of care, and may render them liable for any injury or death that result from such negligence.

Common ways in which medical professionals error in providing medical care include:

Failing to diagnose, delaying diagnosis, or improperly diagnosing disease or injury.
Prescribing the wrong type or dose of medication.
Improperly administering anesthesia during surgery.
Birth injury caused by improper medical decisions or monitoring.

Florida law has established the statute of limitations for filing a medical malpractice claim as only two years, making it imperative that the victim of medical malpractice consult an attorney immediately to ensure that his or her right to compensation is preserved.

The Florida med mal attorneys of Gerson and Schwartz, P.A. have extensive experience representing individuals who have been injured as the result of the negligence of a medical professional. If you or someone you know has been injured by the negligence a medical professional, contact the attorneys of Gerson and Schwartz, P.A. today.

Recently, WFLA reported that, according to a report by insurance company State Farm, Florida ranks in the top ten states for dog bite claims. According the report, in 2012, Floridians made 123 dog bite claims which resulted in pay-outs of $7.1 million, ranking Florida eighth in the country. California was ranked number one, followed by Illinois and Texas at two and three. State Farm paid-out approximately $108 million for dog bite claims in 2012, and estimates there are more than 4.7 million dog bites each year.

Despite a common misconception to the contrary, dogs are not permitted one “free bite” under Florida law and, in fact, the law states quite the opposite. Florida Statutes Section 767.04 states in part:

The owner of any dog that bites any person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners’ knowledge of such viciousness.

Section 767.04 is what the law recognizes as a “strict liability” statute. Strict liability statutes impose liability on an individual for certain types of conduct without a finding of fault, such as negligence. This means that, under Florida law and the laws of most other states, the owner of a dog that bites another individual is automatically held liable for any resulting injury. This liability is imposed regardless of the dog’s former viciousness, or lack therefore, or the owners’ knowledge of such viciousness.

However, the statute expressly recognizes the fact that Florida has adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence, stating that “[a]ny negligence, however, on the part of the dog bite victim that is a proximate cause of the biting incident reduces the liability of the dog owner by the percentage that the bitten person's negligence contributed to the biting incident.”

Florida law also recognizes an exception to the statute under the following circumstances: (1) the victim of a bite is more than six years old; (2) the incident occurred on the dog owner's property; and (3) the property had displayed in a “prominent place” an “easily readable” sign that included the words “Bad Dog.” If the owner satisfies each of these three elements of the exception, he or she is absolved of liability.

Understanding the provisions of Florida law regarding dog bite liability is of particular importance to landlords, who have a duty to protect tenants from a vicious dog(s) that the landlord knows about. Further, landlords can be held liable for failing to enforce “no dog” provisions in lease or rent agreements.

Dog attacks can be particularly dangerous as they often result in severe injuries and, in extreme cases, death. The qualified Florida injury attorneys of Gerson and Schwartz, P.A. have extensive experience representing the victims of dog attacks. If you or someone you know has been injured in a dog attack, contact the attorneys of Gerson and Schwartz, P.A. today.

According to a recent federal civil lawsuit filed by New Jersey resident Anna Burgese, she was attacked by prostitutes in the lobby of Miami Beach's the W Hotel earlier this year. The suit claims that Burgese was "grabbed from behind and thrown with great force into a stone wall head-first" and "tackled to the ground and struck" by a group of prostitutes that had mistaken Burgese for their competition.

Burgese, along with her husband Joseph Burgese, are suing Starwood Hotels and Resorts, the parent company of the W Hotel, for negligence, premises liability, assault, civil liability for criminal activity, and loss of consortium. According to the complaint, the W Hotel “fosters a prostitute-friendly environment" and Miami Beach Police informed the Burgeses that the attackers "may have been under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and confused plaintiff Anna Burgese as competition, i.e., another prostitute who was capturing business at the hotel."

The suit has also named several Jane Does as defendants, a legal tactic commonly used as a placeholder when the identities of defendants are unknown. The yet unidentified Jane Does include the individual that actually attacked Burgese, a group of women that was allegedly encouraging the attack, and another person that hailed a taxi for the attacker after the incident.

One claim of particular interest in the Burgeses’ lawsuit is that for premises liability against the hotel. As this blog has discussed before, premises liability refers to a legal duty that property owners have to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe manner. The extent of the duty owed will depend on the type of relationship between the owner and the injured party, specifically, whether the person was a: (1) invitee (individual who enters a property for business purposes); (2) licensee (individual who enters a property for social purposes); or (3) trespasser (individual without permission to enter onto a property).

Because the Burgeses were at the W Hotel for business purposes, they are considered invitees. Accordingly, the W Hotel owed the Burgeses’ a duty to ensure that its premises were free of dangerous individuals or conditions that the hotel knew or should have know about. If the Burgeses can prove that the presence of the individuals that attacked Anna Burgese constituted a dangerous condition of which the hotel was aware, the Burgeses may be successful in recovering on their premises liability claim.

If you or someone you know has been injured as the result of the dangerous condition of another’s premises, it is important that you discuss your situation with a knowledgeable attorney as soon as possible to determine the merit and value of your claim, as well as to preserve any evidence favorable to your claim.

The qualified Miami injury attorneys of Gerson and Schwartz, P.A. have extensive experience representing individuals who have been injured by the negligent actions or omissions of property owners. If you have been injured on the premises of another, or know someone that has, contact the attorneys of Gerson and Schwartz, P.A. today.

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" »