Florida Injury Attorney Blawg

Any cause of action, or lawsuit, arising in Florida from the death of an individual caused by the wrongful act or negligence of any person or entity is controlled by the "Florida Wrongful Death Act" (Sections 768.16-768.26). This blog describes some key wrongful death claim considerations.

• Statute of Limitations: Florida Statute Section 95.11(4)(d) instructs that an action for wrongful death must commence within two years of death. Section 95.11(4)(b) describes when the SOL can be extended beyond 2 years where the WD resulted from medical negligence. (Read this blog: The Statute of Limitations (SOL) Under Florida's Wrongful Death Act.)
• Court of Competent Jurisdiction: Typically, WD claims are brought in state circuit courts. Regarding venue, Florida Statue, 47.011 provides that "Actions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued.... This section shall not apply to actions against nonresidents." If none of the defendants reside in or have a principal place of business in Florida, the action must be brought in federal court.
• Parties to the Lawsuit (Plaintiff): Florida WD actions are prosecuted by court appointed personal representative(s) on behalf of the decedent's statutorily defined "survivors." Link to this blog (for an outline of the "survivors" list.) The court appointed PR is often a survivor, like an adult child or a parent. The court may also appoint a guardian ad-litem for minors and incompetent adults.
• Parties to the Lawsuit (Defendant): Defendants in WD actions are the individuals and entities who are alleged to be at-fault.
• Damages: Making defendants pay monetary compensation to the survivors for their loss is how defendants are punished under our civil justice system. The amount of compensation, or damages, is determined by examining such elements as mental pain & suffering, loss of the decedent's companionship and protection, past and future loss of support and services, and medical and funeral expenses. (Read this blog to see an outline of the damages available under the Act.)
• Pretrial Procedure: Florida Wrongful Death Act claims can be settled by the parties at any time, even pre-suit. Some are settled after the lawsuit has been filed, but before or during trial. Some are dismiised by the court. The remainder go to final verdict.
• Trial: Wrongful death cases are typically tried to juries, although judges can be chosen to act as the finder of fact. Judges make legal rulings, juries make factual determinations.
• Post-trial: All rulings by judges and juries can be challenged on appeal. The threat of appeal sometimes precipitates settlement.

Continue reading "Key Elements in Florida Wrongful Death Legal Actions" »

While personal injury litigation in Florida courts is not supposed to be a game of "gotcha," or trial by ambush, Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So.108, 111 Fla.1970," unless attorneys pay careful attention, it can happen in their cases. One of the ripest areas for this gamesmanship to occur is in the use of accident videotape.

Premise liability defendants often have videotape of the accident. Rarely is it produced presuit, even when doing so might head off a lawsuit. Proof that tried and true policies aren't always the best. Even during suit, defendants resist turning over the tape. In the hope of catching Plaintiffs giving testimony inconsistent with the events captured on tape, even if the inconsistencies are based on a lack of clear memory or a lack of knowledge, rather than untruthfulness, they want to question plaintiffs before producing the accident footage.

Continue reading "Florida Personal Injury Litigation: Avoid Being Tricked by Defendants -- Obtain Accident Videotape Footage" »

Expert testimony plays a major role in almost every civil and criminal legal case. In Florida state courts expert testimony is governed by sections 90.702-90.706, Florida Statutes. The goal of the statutes is to insure fairness and impartiality in the trial of cases. The standard for when expert testimony is allowed is set forth in Section 90.702, which provides that experts may testify in the form of an opinion "[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify about it in the form of an opinion." The list of subjects for which expert testimony is necessary is endless. Common examples include medical opinions on the cause of an injury and the injury's effect on a person's ability to work; the speed of vehicles at the time of impact; the standard of care of a medical provider; handwriting and body fluid analysis. Expert testimony often determines the outcome of a case.

Florida Statute 90.704 allows experts to rely on "facts or data" not admissible in evidence in forming their opinions. However, there are important limits to this general rule. First, the facts or data must be "of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinion expressed." § 90.704. (Common examples: Diagnostic test reports, e.g., MRI, x-rays, toxicology reports; photographs; autopsy reports.) Second, an expert cannot bolster his or her testimony by testifying that a particular treatise supports an opinion. See Liberatore v. Kaufman, 835 So.2d 404, 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and the cases cited therein. But literature that the expert or trial court recognizes as authoritative can be used in cross-examination. See § 90.706, Fla. Stat.

In Linn v. Fossum, 946 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 2006), a medical malpractice case, the Defendant doctor's medical expert was allowed to testify, over objection, that, on the issue of standard of care, she had put the facts of the case before numerous other doctors. She immediately followed this testimony by concluding that, in her opinion, the Defendant had not breached the standard of care.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, upheld the trial judge's ruling allowing the expert to testify about consulting with other doctors. See, Linn v. Fossum, 894 So.2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The Florida Supreme Court disagreed with the 1st DCA. In a 5-2 decision, the majority held "that an expert is not permitted to testify on direct examination that the expert consulted with colleagues or other experts in formulating an opinion." Linn, 946 So.2d at 1041.

As put by the Supreme Court:

Florida courts have routinely recognized that an expert's testimony "may not merely be used as a conduit for the introduction of the otherwise inadmissible evidence." Erwin v. Todd, 699 So.2d 275, 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); see also Riggins v. Mariner Boat Works, Inc., 545 So.2d 430, 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (recognizing a line of cases that "prohibits the use of expert testimony merely to serve as a conduit to place otherwise inadmissible evidence before a jury").

Continue reading "Florida Law Prohibits Expert Hearsay/Conduit/Bolstering Testimony " »

Federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) -- see 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2 -- expressly forbids sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. Florida's discrimination statute, the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, does not. See Fla. Stat. Section 760.10.

While Florida's statute does not expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, one Florida appellate court, the Fourth District Court of Appeals has decided that a cause of action does exist under Section 760.10 for discrimination in employment based on pregnancy. See Carsillo v. City of Lake Worth, 995 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Florida has five District Courts of Appeals. While the Fourth has decided that a cause of action does exist under 760.10, the First, in O'Loughlin v. Pinchback, 579 So.2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and the Third, in Delva v The Continental Group, Inc., So.3d , 37 FLW D1745 (Fla. 3rd DCA 7-25-2012), have decided that no such right exists under the statute. Neither the Second and the Fifth, nor the Florida Supreme Court have taken a position on the issue.

Continue reading "Prosecuting Employment Pregnancy Discrimination Cases in Florida" »

Individuals in Florida under 18 years of age, considered minors, do not have the legal capacity to settle personal injury claims or control the settlement proceeds. Minors are typically represented in their cases by one or both parents, who, by operation of law, are their legal guardians. In the absence of a parent or where the suitability of a parent is in question, a court can appoint someone else. In some instances, another person, like a grandparent, has already been appointed legal guardian by a court. The legal guardian chooses the lawyer who will handle the personal injury case.

Whether and to what extent further court involvement is required, depends on for how much money the case is settled. In some instances the legal guardian can settle the case without court intervention, while, in others, the court becomes deeply involved. Court involvement adds delay and costs. What follows is a chart setting forth the requirements:

Court Approval of Settlement Required:

• Gross Settlement is $15,000 or less - No, unless a lawsuit has been filed, then yes. Sections 744.301(2) & 744.387(3)(a) Florida Statutes.

  Court approval is obtained by filing a Petition for Approval of Minor's Settlement with the Court. The Petition must contain details of the case regarding the issues of liability and damages, the amount of the settlement, and the amount of attorneys' fees and costs. In many instances, the Court will approve the settlement without a hearing.



• Gross Settlement is greater than $15,000, but less than $50,000 - Yes. Section 744.387(3)(a).


• Gross Settlement in excess of $50,000 - Yes. Section 744.387.

Need Legal Guardianship/Guardian of the Property Appointed:

• Gross Settlement is $15,000 or less - No.


• Gross Settlement is greater than $15,000, but less than $50,000 - Yes, but only if the Net settlement (after gross settlement is reduced by attorney's fees and costs) exceeds $15,000. Section 744.387(2).


• Gross Settlement in excess of $50,000 - Yes, but only if the Net settlement exceeds $15,000. Section 744.387(2).

The guardian of the property, usually the legal guardian, is responsible for signing releases and collecting the net settlement proceeds. However, the court retains sole jurisdiction to determine the allocation and use of the minor's money, including as to how it should be invested for safekeeping until the minor reaches the age of majority. Until majority, the legal guardian needs court approval to touch the minor's money. The Court is supposed to consider what is in the best interest of the minor when determining if or how the proceeds can be used.

Continue reading "Florida Law Chart for Settlement of Minors' Personal Injury Claims" »

Medical bills are a strong measure of injuries and future expenses. However, due to insurance and governmental (e.g., Medicare) discounts, bills are rarely paid in full. Where the medical provider is prohibited, by contract or law, from balance billing, Plaintiffs and Defendants contest which medical expenses, the full charges or the reduced payments, may be presented to the jury.

Plaintiffs argue that total charges give a full picture of their bodily injuries and future medical expenses. Defendants endeavor to limit admissibility to the discounted amounts. The outcome depends on who pays the bills.

Where the discounts are contractual write-downs from private insurance, the trial court should allow evidence of the total charges. In other words, Plaintiff may "board" all billed charges.

If a jury, in the face of discounted medical expenses, awards the Plaintiff the full medical expenses, doesn't the Plaintiff derive a windfall? No. In Goble v. Frohman, 901 So.2d 830 (Fla. 2005), the Florida Supreme Court decided that such verdicts are to be reduced post-trial by the contractual discounts between the providers and private insurance company. Here is an example of how it works: if the discounted payment is $35,000 on total charges of $100,000, and the jury awards $ 100,000 for incurred medical expenses, the verdict will be reduced post-trial by $ 65,000 for a final judgment of $ 35,000.

This is fair. The jury, which does not hear about the discounted payment, is allowed to render its verdict based on relevant, probative evidence, while the judge, post-trial, adjusts the verdict so that the Defendant pays no more than was received by the medical providers.

This raises another question. If insurance has paid and the patient therefor owes the provider nothing, what is fair about a final judgment which awards the Plaintiff the amount paid by the insurance company? Simple. The Plaintiff must repay the money to the insurance company.

In essence, then, the most important aspect of boarding full medicals is for the jury to award the correct amount for pain and suffering damages and future medical expenses.

Continue reading "The Medical Bills Maze in Florida Personal Injury Trials" »

Securing the payment of medical expenses is one of the main responsibilities of Personal Injury attorneys. At trial, Plaintiffs must prove (1) that charges are for treatment for injuries at issue in a lawsuit, as opposed to treatment for some other condition, and (2) the charges are reasonable and necessary. See Garrett v. Morris Kirschman & Co., Inc., 336 So.2d 566 (Fla. 1976).

Interestingly, while part (1) requires expert medical testimony, part (2) is established from the Plaintiff's perspective, rather than from the perspective of a medical expert. See, Id., and Albertson's, Inc. v. Brady, 475 So.2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 486 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1986).

Continue reading "Securing the Payment of Medical Expenses in Florida Personal Injury Cases" »

Our law firm and Domnick & Shevin PL, represent a Disney bus driver who was severely injured in a March 2010 crash with a Mears Transportation Group motor coach near the vehicle entrance to Epcot. He was airlifted to Orlando Regional Medical Center after being pried from the driver's seat of the bus.

The Mears motor coach was stopped in the right lane of Epcot Center Drive, a few hundred feet short of the Epcot vehicle entrance gate. It was stopped, the driver claims, so she could exit the vehicle to inspect for a noise coming from the area of the left front tire. The vehicle was not disabled.

Not perceiving that that the motor coach was stopped, our client plowed his Disney bus into the rear of the motor coach.

Under Florida law, the presumption is that the trailing vehicle in a rear-end accident is at-fault. The presumption is rebutable, meaning that evidence of fault against the lead vehicle can overcome the presumption.

Florida also applies the comparative fault doctrine to personal injury cases. Under this doctrine, blame is apportioned in accordance with fault. For example, a person 25% at fault may recover up to 75% of his or her damages from other responsible parties. This is more equitable than the contributory fault doctrine, formerly followed in Florida, which denied a recovery to anyone with any responsibility for causing the accident, even as little as 1%.

Continue reading "Florida Personal Injury Law - Proving the Tough Vehicle Crash Liability Case" »

Sometimes workers are hurt in the course and scope of their employment by the negligence of third parties. Third parties in this context are entities other than those entitled to workers' compensation immunity. Employers and some subcontractors are entitled to the immunity. Those that are not must pay damages in accordance with the personal injury laws, something quite different than the benefits prescribed by workers' compensation.

Sometimes employees are harassed or terminated by employers for claiming workers' compensation benefits. Chapter 440 does not protect employers against being sued for this type of violation. See Florida Statute 440.205. See, also, our blog, Survey of Florida's Workers' Compensation Wrongful Termination Law.

Sometimes workers' compensation insurance companies and their adjusters engage in unconscionable conduct during the claims handling process. They are not immune from suit for this type of conduct. See Aguilera v. Inservices, Inc., 905 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2005).

When our office suspects that any one of these violations has occurred, we sometimes use the discovery procedures available in workers' compensation cases as a vehicle to learn about the potential other causes.

Continue reading "Use Workers' Compensation Case to Learn About Other Causes of Action (e.g., Personal Injury and Wrongful Termination)" »

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" »

Through legal doctrines such as those pertaining to dangerous instruments (e.g., motor vehicles), principals & agents, and employers & employees, passive tortfeasors can be held liable for the active negligence of others. An active tortfeasor is the person whose negligence has caused an accident, while a passive tortfeasor is the person or company made liable through one or more legal doctrines such as those mentioned above. This type of liability on the part of the passive tortfeasor is known as vicarious liability.

Examples: #1: Through the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, the owner of a motor vehicle will be liable for damages caused by the permissive driver of that vehicle. #2: An employer will be responsible for the damages caused by its employee in the course and scope of the employment. (Our law firm is currently in suit against Mears Destination Services, Inc. for an accident caused by the driver of one of its buses. Mears is vicariously liable under both examples.)

For various practical and strategic reasons, it is sometimes beneficial for the Plaintiff (the party harmed) to reach a settlement with the active tortfeasor, while the passive tortfeasor remains a Defendant in the case. Can this be done without [the Plaintiff] losing the right to continue his or her fight against the passive tortfeasor? Although it may seem counterintuitive, the answer is Yes.

This wasn't always so. It took statutes then court opinions based on the statutes to change the law. The first positive Florida statute was enacted in 1957, while the first good appellate decision interpreting the statute was Hertz Corp. v. Hellens, 140 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). Since then, Florida law has become even clearer on the subject through the following authorities:

Florida Statutes:

• 768.041 Release or covenant not to sue.


• 46.015 Release of parties.


• 768.31(5) Release or covenant not to sue.

Case Law:

• Florida Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, 296 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (The plaintiff settled before trial and executed a release in favor of the only active tortfeasor).

Another aspect that was, but is no longer problematic when settling with active tortfeasors concerns dismissals with prejudice. In JFK Medical Center, Inc. v. Price, 647 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1994), a medical malpractice case, the Plaintiff settled with the active tortfeasor doctor, agreeing to dismiss the case against him with prejudice. The passive hospital, which was a party due to its alleged employer/employee relationship with the doctor, moved for summary judgment on the theory of res judicata, arguing that the claim against it was barred by the active tortfeasor being dismissed with prejudice. The trial court granted the hospital's motion. The 4th DCA reversed the trial court and the Florida Supreme Court approved the appellate court's decision, holding "that a voluntary dismissal of the active tortfeasor, with prejudice, entered by agreement of the parties pursuant to settlement, is not the equivalent of an adjudication on the merits that will serve as a bar to continued litigation against the passive tortfeasor." 647 So. 2d at 834.

Continue reading "Florida Personal Injury Law: Releasing Active Tortfeasors" »

Job one of lawyers who represent individuals who have suffered personal injuries and/or property damage losses is to maximize the client's recovery. The conventional thinking is that the recovery in every case is limited by the measure of actual damages, in other words, the recovery cannot exceed the loss.

Surprisingly, this is a rule that can be broken ... with a proviso.

In Despointes v. Florida Power Corporation, 2 So.3d 360 (2nd DCA 2008), a person who was paid $224,567.66 by her own insurance company, CIGNA, for fire damage, was able to pursue a claim for damages, through her estate, against a third party for the amount already recovered from the insurance company.

The device used for this opportunity was an assignment from CIGNA of its subrogation/reimbursement right.

The CIGNA policy provided for the right of subrogation against any third party recovery. This right authorized CIGNA to pursue a claim against the third party responsible for causing the house fire for the amount it paid to its insured. Instead of pursuing the claim, it assigned the right to its insured.

Thereafter, the insured sued the third party, Intermatic, alleging that the fire had been caused by a defective surge protector. The Defendant argued that the insured was not allowed to recover the money she had already received.

The trial court agreed. The Second District Court of Appeal did not.

Continue reading "Florida Law: Maximize Recovery by Obtaining Assignment of Subrogation Rights" »

The most important job of every personal injury lawyer is to maximize the amount of his or her client's monetary recovery. The damage elements of every personal injury case are "pain & suffering" and economic damages (which includes lost wages, loss of earning capacity, out-of-pocket expenses, and past and future medical expenses). The nature and extent of the injuries bear on every element of damages. Accordingly, effectively demonstrating the nature and extent of the injuries is a critical component in every personal injury case. Various methods are available.

Although medical illustrations, both generic and case-specific, are the traditional way of demonstrating injuries, they continue to serve a convincing role in presenting evidence in today's high tech world. Generic illustrations are less costly and can be used in other cases, but may have less impact than case-specific demonstrations. For spine injuries, showing a summary of pain management injections is effective. The exhibit will visually show every date injections were administered, along with the location, size, and shape of each needle and syringe entering the spine. To have this chart made, the medical illustrator must be provided with the medical records containing the injections information or a summary detailing the information.

Continue reading "Effective Ways of Demonstrating Serious Injuries in Personal Injury Cases" »

One would hope and expect in a society purporting to be civilized, that the negligence of any person or company could not be waived before it happened. Astonishingly, Florida law allows just that: pre-accident releases/waivers barring actions based on the subsequent negligence of the released party.

In other words, Florida law sanctions the equivalent of the Monopoly game, "Get out of Jail Free" pass to those whose wrongoing may injure or kill others.

Cognizant of the tremendous consquences of this law - for example, no hope of compensation for a catastrophically injured person - Florida courts have at least decided that contracts which purport to release or indemnify a party for its own negligence are looked upon with disfavor and will not be enforced unless the instrument clearly and specifically provides for a limitation or elimination of liability for such acts. University Plaza Shopping Center v. Stewart, 272 So. 2d 507, 511 (Fla. 1973). Moreover, it may be settled law that the word "negligence" must appear in the release. See, Bender v. Caregivers of America, Inc., 42 So.3d 893 (Fla 4th DCA 2010); Travent, Ltd. v. Schecter, 718 So. 2d 939, 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Witt v. Dolphin Research Ctr., Inc., 692 So. 2d 27, 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Rosenberg v. Cape Coral Plumbing Inc., 920 So. 2d 61, 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); and Levine v. A. Madley Corp., 516 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

Continue reading "Florida Law: Pre-Incident Waivers Precluding Actions Based on Subsequent Negligence" »