FLORIDA INJURY ATTORNEY BLAWG

By failing to comply with statutory (and regulatory) (deJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 281 So.2d 198 (Fla.1973)), industry (Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Clark, 491 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and company safety standards (Steinberg v. Lomenick, 531 So.2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), rev. denied, 539 So.2d 476 (Fla.1988) and Mayo v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 686 So.2d 801 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)), financial institutions can be held accountable in civil damages to those whose injuries and death — decedent’s survivors are compensated — were proximately caused by crimes associated with the use of ATMs and night cash depositories.

Statutes & Regulations
Florida Statutes 655.960-655.965 contain some safety standards, but are limited in impact by 655.961, which provides: “A violation of the provisions of ss. 655.960-655.965 or any regulation made pursuant thereto does not constitute negligence per se.” Electronic Funds Transfer Act (Regulation E) and the Bank Protection Act (Regulation P) (12 CFR Section 216.1) are federal laws dealing primarily with matters related to the security of the ATMs themselves and to fraudulent transactions, rather than to ATM users’ safety.

Industry Standards

• Adequate lighting at and around ATMs. The typical minimum standards, including some mandated by law, are 10 foot-candles within five feet of the ATM, and two foot-candles 50 to 60 feet away from the ATM, measured at three feet above ground (Ellis 1996; CUNA Service Group 1999; Illinois Office of Banks and Real Estate 1999). Because these standards can leave gaps in coverage due to factors such as shadows, light-source direction, a qualified lighting designer should plan ATM lighting.
• Landscape and design for good visibility. Use slow growing shrubbery and plants and trim often. Objects that obstruct views, such as dumpsters, should be removed. Hidden alcoves should not be used.
• Install mirrors on ATM and in surrounding areas.
• Install ATMs where there is natural surveillance. In places with a lot of routine vehicle and foot traffic. Experts recommend visibility from three sides.
• Install ATMs in police stations.
• Relocate, close or limit hours of operation in high risk locations.

Continue reading

Comparative Fault — see Florida Statute 768.81 –and the Open & Obvious Doctrine are legal concepts that play a role in many premises liability cases.

Under the principle of Comparative Fault, the jury is asked to apportion fault among the parties to a lawsuit, plaintiff and defendant(s), and others who may not even be parties to the lawsuit. The jury must also place a monetary value on the damage sustained by the plaintiff. These two findings make up what is known as the [jury’s] verdict. Interestingly, a jury verdict is not the same thing as a final judgment, issued by judges, and the final numbers between the two can be significantly different.

Here is a rudimentary example to demonstrate the interplay between verdicts and judgments, and illustrate the principal of comparative fault: Mr. Jones, while visiting a friend’s condominium complex, trips on a large crack in a poorly lit underground parking lot while walking into the building. He falls hard to the ground, landing on his chin and head, sustaining a severe laceration and a concussion. Fire Rescue is summoned and transports Mr. Jones to the hospital. The underground lot is owned by a condominium association that has hired a management company to maintain the premises. It is learned that the large crack has existed for years and has caused other accidents. Unable to settle out of court, Mr. Jones sues the condo association and the management company for negligence. The jury returns a verdict in the amount of $500,000, but apportions fault at 75% (condo. association/management company)/25% (Mr. Jones). Based on the concept of comparative fault, the final judgment for Mr. Jones will be $375,000, or 75% of the total damages found by the jury. (In most cases, the judge has much more to consider than simply performing basic math in reaching a final judgment.)

Until 1973, Florida applied the law of contributory fault in all negligence cases. Under this concept, the plaintiff would be completely barred from making any recovery if it was determined that he or she was at fault in any way, even only 1% at fault. In our example, this would mean that Mr. Jones, although only 25% at fault, would receive nothing for his injuries.
Continue reading

Due to flawed record keeping, it is impossible to know with confidence how often violent crimes — murder, kidnapping, battery or robbery — are committed in Florida in conjunction with obtaining cash involuntarily from a victim’s ATM. Most law enforcement agencies do not maintain a separate category for ATM crime. Instead, it is listed in more general categories such as robbery, homicide, and sexual battery/rape. The Universal Crime Report (UCR) forms do not have a place to note that a forced ATM withdrawal has taken place.

Despite the lack of information, ATM-related crime is believed to be high. Put another way, ATM-related crime is foreseeable.

The foreseeability of a harmful event happening is an essential element of every personal injury case. For a defendant to be held accountable under civil tort law, the victim, or Plaintiff, must prevent evidence on the issue of foreseeability.

Crime statistics are a way of proving foreseeability in civil tort actions for injuries or death resulting from inadequate security or safety measures. See Holley v. Mt. Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 – Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 1980.
Continue reading