Florida Injury Attorney Blawg

Typically, Florida automobile insurance policies recognize two classes of insureds. Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229, 238. (Fla. 1971). Class I insureds are named insureds, usually the owner of the vehicle, and their resident relatives. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Warren, 678 So. 2d 324, 326 n.2 (Fla. 1996) (citing Mullis, 252 So. 2d at 238; Quirk v. Anthony, 563 So. 2d 710, 713 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), approved, 583 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1991); Florida Statute 627.732(4). Class II insureds are lawful occupants of an insured vehicle who are not named insureds or resident relatives of named insureds; essentially, they are "third-party beneficiaries to the named insureds' policy. Id. Class II insureds "are insured only because they are drivers or passengers in an insured vehicle with the consent of the named insured." Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Co. v. Hurtado, 587 So. 2d 1314, 1317 (Fla. 1991) (citations omitted).

Continue reading "Florida Automobile Insurance Policies - Classes & Terms" »

Owners of motor vehicles registered and operated in Florida are vicariously liable for damages caused by their vehicles while operated by a consensual driver. Car rental companies are exempt from this rule.

This form of strict liability is derived from Florida's Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine, adopted in Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920), which is based on the proposition that motor vehicles operated on public highways are dangerous instruments and the owners who entrust them to others should be liable for injury to others caused by negligence of the persons to whom the instrumentalities are entrusted.

Until 2005, when the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress carved out an exemption, through the Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C. Sec. 30106), the doctrine applied to the car rental industry. To this writer, the exemption is dangerous because it removes nearly every motivation the industry might have to know who is driving its vehicles. (See this blog for an example of what I mean: Profits Over People - The Willful Ignorance of Florida Car Rental Companies.)

Continue reading "Vehicle Owners - Other Than Rental Agencies - Vicariously Liable Under Florida Law" »

I have blogged here in the past that the 2011 Republican-controlled Florida Legislature seemed bound and determined to gut one of the state's most important laws at holding vehicle manufacturers accountable for producing defective products. Although some within the legislature may have had this outcome as a goal, reasonable minds prevailed in the 2011 legislative session to the extent that the legislative body's modifications did not eviscerate the law as many within the civil justice community had feared.

The principle of law under discussion is the crashworthiness doctrine. It stands for the proposition that vehicle manufacturers can be liable for harm caused by unsafe vehicles, even if the vehicle was put to the test by another negligent party. Kidron v. Carmona, 665 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995) (following Larson v. General Motors, 391 F. 2d 495 (8th Cir. 1968)).

The principle was later bolstered by the holding in D'Amario v. Ford, 806 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2001), which limited the use of comparative fault in crashworthiness cases.

In D'Amario a minor was the passenger in a vehicle that struck a tree. A fire began that ended in an explosion, causing the minor to lose three limbs and suffering burns to much of his body. The fire resulted from a defective relay switch manufactured by Ford.

The minor and his mother sued Ford for the damages resulting from the defective switch. They did not seek to recover compensation from Ford for injuries from striking the tree.

At trial, Ford sought to introduce evidence as to the cause of the initial accident, which was that another minor was intoxicated and negligently drove the vehicle into the tree. The plaintiffs (mother and son) argued that this evidence was irrelevant to the claim for damages caused by the defective switch. The trial court admitted the evidence, meaning that it allowed the jury to hear the evidence. The jury returned a verdict for Ford.

The case was appealed and made its way to the Florida Supreme Court. The court considered cases from other states and concluded that the majority view in the nation was that such impact evidence was relevant. Nevertheless, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the minority view, ruling in favor of the catastrophically injured minor and his mother.

Before D'Amario, in crashworthiness cases jurors were allowed to hear evidence of the driver's fault and apportion damages against the driver. This tended to direct the focus of responsibility onto the negligent driver and take it off the manufacturer whose defective product caused the enhanced injury. D'Amario eliminated the chance of such evidence distracting, confusing, or angering juries.

Not surprisingly, automobile manufacturers have been trying for ten years to reverse D'Amario. Many thought their goal would be accomplished in the 2011 legislative session. Although a measure was proposed that would have satisfied the manufacturers, amendments filed on the Senate Floor by Senator David Simmons (R) and passed by both chambers of the Legislature prevented the crashworthiness doctrine from being eliminated altogether in Florida. The bill that passed, which does modify D'Amario, revised Florida Statute 768.81.

The revised 768.81(3)(b) provides as follows:

In a products liability action alleging that injuries received by a claimant in an accident were enhanced by a defective product, the trier of fact shall consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the accident when apportioning fault between or among them. The jury shall be appropriately instructed by the trial judge on the apportionment of fault in products liability actions where there are allegations that the injuries received by the claimant in an accident were enhanced by a defective product. The rules of evidence apply to these actions.

Continue reading "Florida Legislature Leaves Intact Much of the Crashworthiness (D'Amario) Doctrine" »

Personal injury cases against drunk drivers present positive opportunities for Plaintiff lawyers to seek punitive damages and recover enhanced compensatory damages (e.g., pain & suffering; lost wages).

Punitive Damages

The procedure for claiming punitive damages and the standards for holding a defendant liable for punitive damages are set forth in Florida Statute 768.72.

A claim for punitive damages may not be plead in the initial complaint. Rather, the Plaintiff must seek leave of court to amend the complaint to claim punitive damages. The judge should allow the amendment if evidence in the record or proferred by the Plaintiff provides a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages. Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So.2d 158 (Fla.1996) and F.S. 768.72(1). Contrary to the proposition often put forward by Defendants, the statute does not require an evidentiary hearing to permit the amendment. Pursuant to section 768.72, a proffer of evidence can support a trial court's determination. Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 677 So.2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

768.72 says this about what must be shown to establish liability:

(2) A defendant may be held liable for punitive damages only if the trier of fact, based on clear and convincing evidence, finds that the defendant was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Intentional misconduct" means that the defendant had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury or damage to the claimant would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage.

(b) "Gross negligence" means that the defendant's conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.

Continue reading "Strategies for Handling Florida Personal Injury Claims Against Drunk (DUI) Drivers" »

Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine "imposes, vicarious responsibility upon the owner or other possessor of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts it to another for any subsequent negligent operation which injures a member of the traveling public. Jackson v. Hertz Corporation, 590 So.2d 929, 937. See Kraemer v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 572 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1990); Susco Car Rental Sys. v. Leonard, 112 So.2d 832 (Fla. 1959); Lynch v. Walker, 159 Fla. 188, 31 So.2d 268 (1947); Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920); Anderson v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 73 Fla. 432, 74 So. 975 (1917).

Continue reading "Florida's Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine and Motor Vehicles" »

Uninsured Motorist (UM) coverage is 1st party insurance maintained for the benefit of individuals injured by uninsured motorists.

See these blogs:

• Florida 4th in the Nation in Number of Uninsured Vehicles


• Florida Motor Vehicle Insurance Law: What is Stacked Coverage?


• "Full Coverage" Vehicle Accident Insurance in Florida

An insurance policy is a contract. Unless preempted by a statute or case law, the terms of the policy determine the rights and responsibilities of the parties to the contract, namely the insurer and the insured.

A common policy requirement is for the insured to submit to what is called a Compulsory Medical Examination (CME). A CME is where the insured, who is seeking compensation under the policy for an injury or injuries, is examined by a doctor selected by the insurance company. When requested by the insurer, submitting to the CME is a condition precedent to receiving benefits under the policy, meaning that the insurance company can deny benefits to the insured for failing to attend the CME.

Disputes have arisen between insurer and insured over what is allowed by the CME provision. How frequently may the insurer force the insured to attend CMEs? How far can the carrier make the insured travel to attend the CME? Is there limit on the type of doctor who may perform the CME?

Continue reading "Compulsory Medical Exam - Florida Uninsured Motorist (UM) Insureds Beware!" »

Inflating airbags can cause serious harm or death. The damage occurs when the passenger's head is struck by the airbag, which can travel at speeds up to 200 mph, before it has fully inflated.

A vehicle's "occupant protection system" (OPS) consists of airbags, belt/shoulder restraints, and seat tracks. If the system is designed properly, occupants should not be harmed by deploying airbags. Instead of the head being struck by the airbag during deployment, the head should be cushioned by the fully deployed airbag. Two entirely different dynamics... and often the difference between life and death.

When a vehicle strikes an object, the human body continues to move forward at the pre-crash speed of the vehicle until it is restrained by a seatbelt/shoulder harness or comes into contact with the airbag, windshield, or instrument panel. The one factor common to all persons severely injured or killed by an airbag is that they are very close to the airbag at the time of deployment. A properly designed system prevents this from happening.

Seat tracking determines how far forward seats are able to be situated. If located too close to the airbag, the inflating airbag will impact the head before it has fully deployed. The solution to this problem is for manufacturers to limit how far forward seats can move on the track. When designing this aspect of the OPS, manufacturers must assume that the occupants will have their seats fully forward.

The other consideration to prevent occupants from being too close to airbags during deployment, is the seatbelt/shoulder harness system. Shoulder harness pre-tensioning should limit the body from moving forward into the deployment zone.

Continue reading "Defective Design - Motor Vehicle Airbags" »

Nationwide, roughly one in seven (13.8%) drivers are not covered by liability insurance and are therefore uninsured. Florida is tied in fourth place with Tennessee and Oklahoma at 24% with the highest percentage of uninsured drivers.

Part of Florida's numbers are attributable to its motor vehicle insurance laws. Liability insurance is not required to operate a vehicle lawfully on Florida's streets and highways. The coverage is optional and a premium will be charged to purchase it.

The only coverages that are required to obtain a vehicle registration and, thus, operate a vehicle lawfully, are Personal Injury Protection (PIP) and Property Damage - Liability. (However, in the event of an accident resulting in death or personal injury, if the uninsured motorcyclist or car/truck owner with only PIP/PD is charged with causing the accident, his/her drivers license and all vehicle registrations will be suspended. Sections 316.066(3)(a)1 and 324.051(2)(a) of Florida's Statutes.) Neither coverage compensates the victim of an at-fault party's negligence for personal injuries and economic losses.

Little can be done to prevent an accident caused by another person's fault. However, safeguards can be taken to protect against the one in four chance of finding yourself without insurance coverage to compensate for serious personal injuries and economic losses. The answer is Uninsured Motorist/Underinsured Motorist Coverage. (Florida Statute 627.727.)

Continue reading "Florida 4th in the Nation in Number of Uninsured Vehicles" »

Stacking coverage is one of the most misunderstood areas of Florida's motor vehicle insurance laws. The goal of this blog is to help clear up the confusion.

Stacked coverage is a type of coverage that is available within the broader type of coverage known as uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) insurance. Neither coverage is mandatory under Florida law.

In Florida, the only mandatory coverages are Personal Injury Protection (PIP) and Property Damage - Liability. Every other type of coverage is optional.

One type of optional coverage is Bodily Injury, or BI. BI coverage pays for personal injuries, death, and economic losses caused by the insured's negligence. Because an additional premium is charged for BI coverage, it is not purchased by every insured.

Uninsured/Underinsured coverage protects against the negligent motorist who does not have BI coverage (UM) or whose BI coverage limits are not sufficient to cover the losses (UIM). In other words, it performs for the insured (the person who has been damaged) as the at-fault party's BI coverage otherwise would.

Whenever BI coverage is purchased, UM/UIM will be included in the policy unless waived in writing by the insured. Like BI, it is not mandatory and a premium will be charged by the insurance company for the coverage.

Stacked coverage is an optional type of coverage that is available with the purchase of UM/UIM coverage. Like UM/UIM, stacked coverage will be included in the policy unless waived in writing by the insured.

Continue reading "Florida Motor Vehicle Insurance Law: What is Stacked Coverage? " »

Adopted in 1920, Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes strict vicarious liability upon the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes damage to another. See Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 468, 86 So. 629, 637 (1920). As expressed in Southern Cotton Oil:

[O]ne who authorizes and permits an instrumentality that is peculiarly dangerous in its operation to be used by another on the public highway is liable in damages for injuries to third persons caused by the negligent operation of such instrumentality on the highway by one so authorized by the owner.

Over the years, the doctrine has been applied to golf carts, trucks, buses, tow-motors and other motorized vehicles. Meister v. Fisher, 462 So. 2d 1071 (Fla: Supreme Court 1984); See, e.g., Eagle Stevedores, Inc. v. Thomas, 145 So.2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).

Does the doctrine apply to trailers that make up the semi, tractor-trailer rigs so common to our highways? To the surprise of many, including some lawyers, the answer is No. See Saullo v. Douglas, 957 So.2d 80 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Pullman v. Johnson, 543 So.2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Edwards v. ABC Transportation Co., 616 So.2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

Continue reading "Florida's Dangerous Instrumentality Law - Tractor/Trailer Rigs" »

Motor vehicle accident victims would be well advised to follow these basic suggestions, many of which are applicable to other types of accidents:

1. DO NOT give any statements, in writing or over the phone, to anyone about your car accident or injuries. This can even apply to your own insurance company, although caution must be taken here to avoid giving your insurance company an excuse for denying coverage. This condition is one reason why it is important to consult with a lawyer about your case as soon as possible. Car accident cases present countless landmines to those who are unaware of them.


2. Take photographs of your car before it is repaired. Save and give the photographs to your lawyer. If you are unable to take photographs, your lawyer should get it done.


3. Keep all receipts for any medical or pharmacy payments you make for injuries caused by your car accident.


4. Keep all receipts for any other out-of-pocket expenses incurred by you as a result of the accident.


5. Be sure to notify your treating doctors(s) about any prior car accidents, fall downs, workers' compensation claims, or injuries. Insurance companies will use any incorrect or mistaken statements to your doctors against you. If you do not recall your past accidents, just tell the doctor, "I don't remember," rather than guessing.


6. Keep your lawyer informed of all medical appointments.


7. Do not lose contact with your lawyer. Provide new addresses and phone numbers as soon as possible.


8. It is critical that you tell your doctor(s) about any and all pains and problems you are having. Too often, car accident victims feel that something is not worth mentioning, until it becomes worse. Unfortunately, insurance companies and juries will hold any delay in telling your doctors about your injuries against you.


9. Make sure you follow all of your doctors recommendations, including attending all physical therapy appointments, filling all of your prescriptions and having all MRIs done in a timely manner. If you have to cancel an appointment, please make sure to immediately reschedule it.


10. Lastly, make sure not to discuss your case with anyone other than your attorney or his/her staff. This includes posting information to Facebook and MySpace. Consider that the information you post to these sites will be discovered by the Defendant.

********************************
Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals - the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

Contact us today to schedule a free, confidential consultation to discuss your important legal matter.

By its decision in Vargas v. Enterprise Leasing Company (Case no.: SC08-2269; opinion issued on April 21, 2011), the Supreme Court of Florida has declared that car rental agencies, unlike regular citizens and other businesses, are not vicariously liable for accidents involving the vehicles they own. Score one for big business!

Rafael Vargas was rear-ended and injured in his car by a rental vehicle owned by Enterprise Leasing Company. Vargas sued Enterprise for personal injuries on the theory of vicarious liability. The trial court dismissed the case and the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judge's decision, inviting the Supreme Court to answer a question certified to be of great public importance:

DOES THE GRAVES AMENDMENT, 49 U.S.C. § 30106, PREEMPT SECTION 324.021(9)(b)2, FLORIDA STATUTES (2007)?

The Supreme Court accepted the invitation and answered the certified question in the affirmative.

At the urging of the Bush Administration, in 2005 the Republican-controlled Congress enacted the Graves Amendment. Proponents of the federal law sought to immunize rental agencies from laws in the various states which held them financially responsible for injury and death caused by their vehicles. One of those laws is/was Florida Statute Section 324.021(9)(b)2. Opponents argued that the Graves Amendment did not preempt the Florida statute. Hence, the stage was set for Vargas v. Enterprise Leasing Company.

Continue reading "Supreme Court of Florida Gives Free Ride to Car Rental Agencies" »

Vehicles like the Ford Bronco II, Ford Explorer and 15-passenger vans are designed with an unreasonable risk of rollover. Although there are many things manufacturers can do to prevent rollover accidents, rollover accidents will occur in vehicles considered safe. Knowing this, manufacturers should implement safety features designed to limit rollover accident injuries.

Although rollover accidents constitute 1.74% to 6.3% of all accidents depending on the type of vehicle involved, they account for 33% of all serious injuries and death.

Amazingly, the federal government does not require manufacturers to conduct rollover accident testing. The consequence of this is a gap in knowledge in how best to prevent rollover accident injuries and many vehicles lacking available equipment to optimally protect occupants in a rollover.

Continue reading "Limiting Injury in Vehicle Rollover Accidents" »

Our law firm (along with co-counsel firm Domnick & Shevin, LLP) is currently involved in litigation against the Enterprise car rental company.

In 2008, Enterprise rented a vehicle, in Miami, to a person whose Florida driver's license was under suspension for failing to appear in court on a number of motor vehicle moving violations. After his credit card was rejected, forcing him to leave the rental agency to obtain cash, he returned with the cash and presented a facially valid (although unlawfully obtained) Texas driver's license to the rental agent. Enterprise rented him the vehicle.

A few days later, the renter caused a high-speed rollover accident in the Enterprise vehicle on I-75 near Gainesville, Florida. Our client, a passenger in the vehicle, was airlifted to Shands Hospital with life-threatening injuries. She remains severely disabled, in great pain, and unable to work.

A quick and inexpensive (less than $1.00) Internet database search, based on name and birth date, performed by the Enterprise agent, would have disclosed the customer's license suspension and traffic record. However, since the agent was not instructed or authorized by Enterprise to perform such a search, one was not done.

We sued Enterprise on the theory that it negligently entrusted its vehicle to the at-fault driver. Enterprise claims that it did nothing wrong.

What is Enterprise's primary defense? Florida Statute 322.38(2).

322.38(2) provides as follows - No person shall rent a motor vehicle to another until he or she has inspected the driver's license of the person to whom the vehicle is to be rented, and compared and verified the signature thereon with the signature of such person written in his or her presence.

Enterprise argues that 322.38(2) is a safe harbor provision providing it with absolute immunity from fault, that despite the ease and nominal cost of determining the prospective customer's license status and driving record, its only responsibility to the public was to inspect the Texas driver's license and compare and verify the signature thereon.

The Plaintiff's (our client) position is that 322.38(2) is not a safe harbor provision extending absolute immunity to Enterprise or any other rental agency. Rather, it is a minimum standard established by the Florida Legislature to create some level of safety for those who travel on the streets and highways of the state, but it is not the only standard that can be considered by judges and juries to determine reasonable conduct under every circumstance.

It is simply not the Legislature's role to instruct companies how to conduct every aspect of their business. Those business decisions are left to the judgment of the companies, with the understanding, however, that poor decisions or worse can result in serious legal consequences.

Such is the scenario in our case. Enterprise did nothing more than the bare minimum. A judge and jury will now decide if this conduct was reasonable under the circumstances. We do not believe that it was, thus our claim for negligent entrustment. Clearly, Enterprise could have done more.

Continue reading "Florida Statute 322.28 - Safe Harbor or Bare Minimum for Rental Car Agencies?" »

Fault (or negligence) is always an issue in Florida motor vehicle accident personal injury cases. For an individual to be successful in claiming damages against another party, the claimant has the burden of proving that the other party caused the accident.

In some cases, proving fault is an easy matter. In others, the issue will be hotly contested. In those cases, the plaintiff - the party seeking damages - needs evidence to prove her or his case. One place to look (for evidence) is in the traffic court records.

In most Florida motor vehicle accidents, an investigating law enforcement officer will issue a traffic infraction/ticket to one or more of the involved parties. The ticket can be an expression of the investigating officer's opinion with regard to fault. For example, a driver may be ticketed for following too closely or for failing to yield the right of way.

Although the traffic infraction itself is not admissable as evidence of guilt in a civil case arising out of the accident, the defendant's response to the traffic charge may be.

With a few exceptions, Florida Statute Section 318.14(4)(a) allows any person charged with a noncriminal traffic infraction to pay the civil penalty by mail or in person without the effective admission of guilt being used as evidence in any other proceedings. "[O]ther proceedings" includes a civil action arising out of a traffic accident.

For purposes of motor vehicle accidents, the most important exceptions to 318.14(4)(a) are contained in Florida Statute 318.19, which contains a list of traffic infractions requiring a mandatory hearing. Those infractions are:

1. Any infraction which results in a crash that causes the death of another;


2. Any infraction which results in a crash that causes "serious bodily injury" of another as defined in s. 316.1933(1);


3. Any infraction of s. 316.172(1)(b);


4. Any infraction of s. 316.520(1) or (2); or


5. Any infraction of s. 316.183(2), s. 316.187, or s. 316.189 of exceeding the speed limit by 30 m.p.h. or more.

Unlike the allowance contained in 318.14, a guilty plea in one of the 318.19 exceptions can be used as evidence in any other proceedings, including a civil case for damages. (The record of the plea is admitted, not as establishing the fact [of fault], but as a deliberate declaration or admission of the party himself that the fact is true. Boshnack v. World Wide Rent-A-Car, Inc., 195 So.2d 216, 218 (Fla., 1967).)

Continue reading "To Plead or Not to Plead to Florida Traffic Ticket/Citation - Florida Personal Injury Law" »