Personal Injury

October 14, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Sovereign Immunity (“The King can do no wrong”) Harms We the People

One of the primary public policy reasons for having a robust civil justice system that is able to exact full compensatory damages from negligent actors is to encourage safe conduct. Short of criminal punishment, nothing motivates people and corporations to act responsibly more than the threat of losing money.

Sovereign Immunity is a legal concept applied in monarchies and constitutional monarchies such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Jordan, and the Netherlands, to make the sovereign or state immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. It is derived from the Latin maxim Rex non potest peccare, meaning “the king can do no wrong.” Florida has enacted a modified version of sovereign immunity in the area of civil law involving personal injuries and wrongful death.

Under Florida civil law, people and companies who are not protected by sovereign immunity can be held accountable up to the full measure of the damages caused by their negligence. Those damages can include pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of income. In cases involving serious injuries or the loss of life, the full measure of damages can be in the millions.

Florida’s sovereign immunity law limits the amount of compensation the sovereign can be compelled to pay. Under section 768.28(5)(a), Florida Statutes, the sovereign, described as “the state and its agencies and subdivisions,” is limited to paying $200,000 per individual, $300,000 per claim. In other words, the most a sovereign will ever have to pay in a single case is $300,000. It does not matter how substantial the actual losses are.

This arbitrary sovereign immunity cap defeats the public policy of encouraging safe conduct.

October 6, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Duty and Proximate Cause are Essential Elements of Every Florida Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Negligence Case

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Duty and proximate cause are essential elements of every Florida personal injury and wrongful death negligence case.

DUTY: “Where a defendant’s conduct creates a foreseeable zone of risk, the law generally will recognize a duty placed upon defendant either to lessen the risk or see that sufficient precautions are taken to protect others from the harm that the risk poses.” See Kaisner v Kolb, 543 So.2d 732, 735 (Fla. 1989) (citing Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So.2d 33, 35 (Fla. 1983)).

PROXIMATE CAUSE: “The proximate causation element, on the other hand, is concerned with whether and to what extent the defendant’s conduct foreseeably and substantially caused the specific injury that actually occurred.” McCain v. Florida Power Corporation, 593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla. 1992).

While the concept of foreseeability can be relevant to both elements, the concept “relates to duty and proximate causation in different ways and to different ends.” Id. at 502. Hence, merging the two elements into a single hybrid foreseeability analysis would be incorrect.

September 8, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Florida Contractors and Subcontractors

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

It is sometimes possible for employees injured on the job in Florida to be compensated through both the state’s workers’ compensation system and its civil justice system. As to the compensation available and the manner in which the compensation is sought and received, the systems are more different than they are alike. One of the primary differences is that compensation for human damages such as bodily injury, pain and suffering, disfigurement, mental anguish, and the loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, are elements of a civil remedy but not workers’ compensation. In a nutshell, workers’ compensation benefits are limited to medical and indemnity benefits. Non-economic damages, which can amount to millions of dollars, are not recoverable.

What limits most employees from being able to receive the civil remedy is the legal concept known as workers’ compensation immunity. The basic concept is set forth in Fla. Stat. Sec. 440.11(1):

The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death….

Special laws have been devised to deal with workers’ compensation immunity in the context of contractor-subcontractor relationships. See Fla. Stat. Sec. 440.10(b)-(f). For the employees of contractors and subcontractors, the general law is set forth in s. 440.10(b):

In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment.

“[T]he purpose of section 440.10 . . . [is] ‘to insure [sic] that a particular industry will be financially responsible for injuries to those employees working in it, even though the prime contractor employs an independent contractor to perform part or all of its contractual undertaking.’” Gator Freightways, Inc. v. Roberts, 550 So. 2d 1117, 1119 (Fla. 1989) (quoting Roberts v. Gator Freightways, Inc., 538 So. 2d 55, 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)); see also Crum Servs. v. Lopez, 975 So. 2d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (explaining that section 440.10(1)(b) “is designed to ensure that employees engaged in the same contract work are covered by workers’ compensation, regardless of whether they are employees of the general contractor or its subcontractor”).

June 1, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Fundamentals Always Matter — Proximate Cause

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

In every negligence action for injuries or wrongful death the plaintiff must establish (1) a duty owed by the defendant; (2) the defendant’s breach of the duty; and (3) and that said breach proximately caused the damages claimed.

In negligence actions Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury. See Tampa Electric Co. v. Jones, 138 Fla. 746, 190 So. 26 (1939); Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So.2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1979); Bryant v. Jax Liquors, 352 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 710 (Fla. 1978). Prosser explored this standard of proof as follows:

On the issue of the fact of causation, as on other issues essential to his cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff, in general, has the burden of proof. He must introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a substantial factor in bringing about the result. A mere possibility of such causation is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.

The north star of the law of causation is the landmark supreme court decision in Gooding v. University Hospital Building, Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1020 (Fla. 1984). The Florida Supreme Court described the case as follows:

Emily Gooding, personal representative of Mr. Gooding’s estate, brought a wrongful death action against the hospital alleging negligence by the emergency room staff in not taking an adequate history, in failing to physically examine Mr. Gooding, and in not ordering the laboratory tests necessary to diagnose and treat Mr. Gooding’s abdominal aneurysm before he bled out and went into cardiac arrest. Mrs. Gooding’s expert witness, Dr. Charles Bailey, a cardiologist, testified that the inaction of the emergency room staff violated accepted medical standards [i.e., there was a breach]. Dr. Bailey, however, failed to testify that immediate diagnosis and surgery more likely than not would have enabled Mr. Gooding to survive.

The trial court denied the hospital’s motion for directed verdict on causation. The jury found the hospital liable and awarded damages. The hospital appealed. The First District Court of Appeal reversed on the grounds that the trial court should have directed a verdict in favor of the hospital because Mr. Gooding’s chances of survival under the best of conditions were no more than even. The plaintiff, therefore, could not meet the more likely than not test for causation. The Supreme Court affirmed the DCA on this holding.

April 17, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis Signs Legislation Limiting Access to Courts in Personal Injury Cases

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

On March 24, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a bill passed by the Florida Legislature aimed at limiting the rights of individuals from seeking and obtaining civil redress in the courts for personal injuries. The bill is House Bill 837. Parts of the bill became effective when it was signed by DeSantis. It will change many existing laws in dramatic ways.

Statute of Limitations. The most obvious change is to limit the time period during which a personal injury case can be filed from four years to two years. This time limitation is known as the statute of limitations. Claims filed after the SOL period will be time-barred.

It is not unusual for individuals involved in accidents to wait years before deciding to pursue a claim. The reasons for delaying are varied but include not knowing a claim can be brought, personal disruption caused by the incident, injury recovery time, an ideological opposition to involving the civil justice system, and bad legal advice.

Proponents of the reduced statute of limitations period are seeking to limit the number of lawsuits that are filed. The opposite may happen. Most personal injury cases are resolved without a lawsuit being filed. Even in cases where a remedy is sought within two years of the incident, it is not unusual for those cases to be resolved without a lawsuit well after two years from the incident date. Reasons for this include injury healing time and ongoing negotiations.

Because of the shortened time period, lawsuits will have to be filed in many cases simply to preserve the right to a remedy even if the case would otherwise resolve amicably without filing. Once a lawsuit is filed, the contingency fee payable by the plaintiff upon recovery rises and the cost of handling the case increases. These factors make it more difficult to settle out of court.

Bottom line: the goal of limiting lawsuits by shortening the SOL will be offset by lawsuits having to be filed to keep from being time-barred. While some people will lose out on a remedy by going over the SOL, the legal system will not see a reduced burden. Hence, the measure is a net negative.

January 14, 2023

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Recovering for Mental and Nervous Injuries in Florida

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Florida’s liability law and workers’ compensation systems are cautious about awarding benefits for mental and nervous injuries. The underlying basis for the caution is that allowing recovery for injuries resulting from purely emotional distress would open the floodgates for fictitious or speculative claims. R.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So.2d 360 (Fla.1995).

What has come to be known as the “Impact Rule” requires that “before a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligence of another, the emotional distress suffered must flow from physical injuries the plaintiff sustained in an impact.'” See Southern Baptist Hosp. of Fla. v. Welker, 908 So.2d 317 (Fla.2005).

The rule is applied in common law personal injury cases and in workers’ compensation cases.

Limited exceptions to the Impact Rule apply in both fields. The common law exceptions have been created by the Florida Supreme Court. See, e.g., Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. King, 557 So.2d 574 (Fla.1990) (recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress absent impact); Champion v. Gray, 478 So.2d 17 (Fla.1985) (allowing recovery where plaintiff is in the “sensory perception” of physical injuries sustained by a close family member); Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So.2d 415 (Fla.1992) (finding rule inapplicable to actions for wrongful birth); Tanner v. Hartog, 696 So.2d 705 (Fla.1997) (impact rule does not preclude recovery of non-economic damages for parents of stillborn child); Gracey v. Eaker (impact rule inapplicable for breach of statutory duty of confidentiality to patient); Rowell v. Holt, 850 So.2d 474 (Fla.2003) (impact rule does not preclude recovery for psychological injury due to attorney’s negligence).

In short, “[e]xceptions to the rule have been narrowly created and defined in a certain very narrow class of cases in which the foreseeability and gravity of the emotional injury involved, and lack of countervailing policy concerns, have surmounted the policy rationale undergirding application of the impact rule.” Id. at 478.

Compare these close-call cases: R.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1995) (impact rule applies to negligent HIV diagnosis without physical damage), Woodard v. Jupiter Christian School, Inc., 913 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 2005) (impact rule applies to outing student’s homosexuality).

December 7, 2022

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Ignorance of a Document’s Content is no Defense

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

“Ignorance of the law is no defense” is a popular expression. It means that a person will not be excused from punishment for not knowing that particular conduct was against the law.

A similar rule holds true when it comes to written documents: Ignorance of a document’s content does not discharge the responsibility of a party to the document.

We are in suit against a homeowner for serious personal injuries sustained by our client from an accident that occurred on the homeowner’s property during a construction project. Among the legal theories claimed for holding the homeowner responsible is the breach of his duty created by undertaking the project as the owner-builder.

September 20, 2022

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Consider Gross Negligence to Avoid Florida Workers’ Compensation Immunity

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

During every initial workers’ compensation client interview, I spend time explaining that Florida’s workers’ compensation system does not pay benefits for non-economic damages such as pain and suffering. Most people don’t know this. I reiterate the point during various stages of the case, especially as we approach settlement discussions. Nothing prevents fair and reasonable settlements more than expectations based on misapprehensions of the law.

The statutory authority for this limit on non-economic damages in workers’ compensation cases is found in Florida Statute 440.11(1):

The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death….

The “at law” provision encompasses non-economic damages, and the limitation is commonly referred to as “workers’ compensation immunity.” Injured workers bound by this provision are limited to receiving medical and indemnity benefits through the workers’ compensation system contained in Chapter 440 of Florida’s statutes.

“[A]t law” non-economic damages are available in personal injury cases. A key element of every personal injury case is that the harm resulted from, at a minimum, another person’s or entity’s negligence. 440.11 bars personal injury claims against co-workers and employers for mere negligence. This is “workers’ compensation immunity.”

September 1, 2022

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Considerations Concerning Cash Advance Funding of Florida Personal Injury and Workers’ Compensation Cases

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

The competition to advance money to those injured in accidents is fierce. The reason for the fierce competition is the potentially high rate of return on the investment.

Numerous companies, some large with a national presence, engage in the competition. Because their only security is the injury case itself (workers’ compensation and personal injury), which gives rise to the term “non-recourse funding advance“, the companies are not bound by Florida’s usury laws limiting interest rate charges. The rate can be multiple times over the 18% limit allowed in Florida. In fact, the interest rates are so high that the repayment amount can quickly double and triple the principal.

Advance companies are barred from foreclosing on real property or seeking repayment through wage garnishment. Their sole recourse for repayment is the case itself. If the case fails altogether or the recovery is not enough to repay the advance in full, it’s tough luck for the company. Given the precarious nature of accident cases, this is a real risk. Cases can “Go South,” so to speak, for a variety of reasons.

July 27, 2022

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Unrelated Works Exception to Workers’ Compensation Immunity Does Not Apply to Employees of a Different Subcontractor

by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

It is the job of every injury lawyer to maximize the client’s recovery. Sometimes when a person is hurt at work, more than one remedy is available. Workers’ compensation is one remedy. Civil law is another.

Florida’s workers’ compensation laws do not allow for the recovery of noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering. Workers’ compensation covers only authorized medical expenses and a defined period of lost wages. Noneconomic damages are not allowed. Civil remedy damages include economic damages such as medical expenses and lost wages as well as noneconomic damages.

Florida Statute 440.11 provides immunity to employers and their employees from civil remedy actions. There are exceptions to this rule. The exceptions are outlined in 440.11. The employer loses its immunity if it fails to maintain the workers’ compensation security required by Chapter 440 or commits an intentional tort. Section 440.11(1)(b) describes the fellow-employee exceptions:

Fellow-employee immunities shall not be applicable to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence when such acts result in injury or death or such acts proximately cause such injury or death, nor shall such immunities be applicable to employees of the same employer when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer’s business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment. (Italics added.)

In Moradiellos v Gerelco Traffic Controls, Inc., 176 So.3d 329 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2015), Mr. Moradiellos was killed in a construction site incident caused by the negligence of a subcontractor’s employee. Employees of construction subcontractors typically also get the 440.11 workers’ compensation immunity. The decedent was employed by the general contractor.