The sad fact is that in many catastrophic accidents in death results. When there is a death, it is left to the estate of the deceased to pursue any claims against third parties. But there are still certain areas where the right of an estate to bring a claim is called into question.
A new case, however, has broadened the areas where the estate of a deceased person can bring a lawsuit.
If you’re injured on someone else’s property, you may not give much thought as to whether your case involves ordinary negligence, or premises liability. In fact, the terms sound practically identical in many ways. But legally, and to injury lawyers that specialize in premises liability cases, the distinction can make a big difference as to whether you’re entitled to recover for damages or not.
A recent case has examined the distinction between the two terms. The case involved a victim who was shot in the leg while attending a party at an apartment complex. The victim did not live at the complex.
This tragic injury story happens all too often in South Florida: Someone is served alcohol, gets drunk, drives, and kills or injures someone on the road. We all know this kind of behavior is illegal. But often the question becomes what liability the bar has for serving the alcohol when the patron drives away and injures someone. (Note that the laws apply to any establishment serving alcoholic drinks, but for ease, we’ll just call them collectively, “bars.”)
A patron has consumed loads of alcohol, and maybe even displays signs of intoxication. Yet, the bar continues to serve alcohol, knowing that someone has had too much, and will likely be getting into a car shortly. Is the bar liable if that person injuries someone?
There are certain beliefs that we have about American justice that are crucial to an effective court system. One such belief is in the neutrality of our judges. That our judges will see our case impartially, without interference from public opinion, or their own personal beliefs. A recent case has upheld this idea, and it’s an important lesson in listening to what judges say while on the bench.
The case doesn’t involve a personal injury, but rather involves an insurance coverage dispute. A homeowners’ association (HOA) sued its own insurance company after the insurance company claimed that the insurance policy did not cover the repair of falling concrete in a parking garage.
By now most of our readers should know that where a crime is committed, there may also be an avenue for civil recovery, by suing the wrongdoer for damages. A recent case provides an interesting analysis as to what happens when a family member is killed by another family member, and a surviving spouse attempts to sue for damages as a result of that crime.
The case is Cosman v. Rodriguez, and it involved the killing of a wife by her husband after fifty years of marriage. The husband was convicted of murder, but the wife’s surviving adult child tried to sue the husband for damages.
When someone is injured, we normally think of suing a person or a company whose negligence was responsible for our injuries. But if you learned that ghosts—or, more legally proper, “phantoms”—could be responsible for injuries, you’d probably think we were joking.
But phantom defendants are far from funny. In fact, they can be a huge problem when they get involved in your injury case.
We often think that in lawsuits of any kind, including injury cases, that attorneys’ fees are automatically awarded to the prevailing party. But in our system, attorneys’ fees are only awarded where there is a contract or statute providing for them.
In ordinary negligence cases, there is no provision for attorneys’ fees. A jury cannot award attorneys’ fees and a defendant is not obligated to pay them, even where the defendant was found liable by a jury.
But Florida has a unique fee-shifting statute that can be used to obtain attorneys’ fees. The problem is that it can also be turned around, and used to make injured victims pay the fees of negligent defendants.
We’ve written in the past about the importance of understanding what kind of cases are medical malpractice, and what kind are general negligence or products liability. A recent case has again discussed the difference, this time in a products liability context.
The difference is important because of the mandatory medical malpractice pre-suit requirements. Florida law puts significant requirements on a plaintiff suing for medical malpractice that aren’t required for ordinary negligence or products liability.
If you are injured because of the negligence of another, you may begin to analyze your case with the more obvious aspects of an injury lawsuit. Was someone negligent? How? Were you injured? How badly?
But often overlooked is the issue of collectability. Collectability is your ability to collect a judgment that is entered in your favor. Being awarded millions of dollars can be an empty victory if the defendant has no funds to pay the verdict entered.
In many personal injury cases, a negligent defendant will be in possession of crucial evidence, often for a long period of time before it has to be turned over. This may include a product that allegedly malfunctioned, witness reports, or photos of an accident scene.
You may wonder what is to prevent a defendant, who knows he was negligent, and knows that a lawsuit may be coming, from simply “losing” or destroying crucial evidence? And if it happens, how does an injured plaintiff prove their claim?
Miami Accident Lawyer Blog
