Articles Tagged with injury attorney

Published on:

One of the first things our Plantation injury lawyers are asked by new or prospective clients is, “What is my injury case worth?” That is actually a pretty complex question, but we may be able to give a ballpark estimate fairly early on. What you should absolutely avoid, though, are accepting any personal injury settlement offers without discussing it first with your attorney. That’s because it’s very common for injury case defendants and insurers to toss out Florida personal injury settlement offers that may seem like a lot at first blush, but in fact are much lower than to what you might actually be entitled. personal injury settlement offer

Personal injury settlement offers are made by defendants (or more likely, the insurance companies representing those defendants) or plaintiffs in order to settle the case prior to a trial. Civil injury trials are time-consuming and expensive, and both sides have an interest in avoiding them if at all possible. That doesn’t mean Plantation injury lawyers should be quick to settle. We recognize that often the first offer made by insurers is not the best and final offer. Your lawyer should have a strong sense of how much your claim is worth as well as the tactics often employed by defendants in these cases.

This is especially important because of provisions of Florida law that penalize parties who reject reasonable personal injury settlement offers and end up with virtually the same or worse outcome at trial.

Florida Personal Injury Settlement Offer Statute Continue reading →

Published on:

Rock climbing injuries are on the rise, as more people are eager to take on the challenge of a fun, invigorating exercise they believe to be safe. It’s even become an Olympic sport, though not many are quite so serious about it. rock climbing injury

A recent report reveals more than 40,000 people have been treated at hospital emergency rooms from 1990 to 2007 for broken bones, sprains and strains and other rock-climbing injuries. The Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Ohio reports that’s a 63 percent increase.

Injuries are most commonly caused by falls, which account for 70 percent of all cases. The higher the fall, the more severe the injuries. Those who fall from heights of 20 feet or higher were 10 times more likely to be hospitalized, compared to those who fell from lower heights. Half of all injuries were fractures, sprains and strains with the lower body being most prone to injury. Continue reading →

Published on:

If you are injured by a product – whether it’s a defective vehicle or a faulty power tool – proving the manufacturer (or anyone in the chain of distribution) liable involves (per the Third Restatement of Torts) the existence of alternative design the main test to ascertain whether a product is defective. This provision holds that a product is defective in design only when the foreseeable risk of harm posed by that product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller. gavel

However, many states have been highly critical of this test, and Florida is one of those places wherein it’s been explicitly rejected. In 2015, the Florida Supreme Court in the 68-page ruling of Aubin v. Union Carbide Corpheld that it would retain the approach of the Second Restatement of Torts (which does not place this additional burden on consumers). The court ruled that in some instances in strict liability claims, the Third Restatement might shield manufacturers from all liability for products that are unreasonably dangerous simply because an alternative design for that product might be unavailable – even when, in some cases, the product may be in defective condition that’s unreasonably dangerous to the user. Further, the Third Restatement runs contrary to case law precedent set in this state, the court held.

However, federal courts often still use this test (though state law may still be applied). But as a recent case before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals shows, there is still opportunity to prevail.  Continue reading →

Published on:

The sovereign immunity doctrine in Florida bars lawsuits in state court against a state government, as well as its agencies and subdivision, absent governmental consent. Although proponents of this theory say it allows for governmental discretion by allowing officials to engage in flexible decision-making without risk of liability and protects public funds, opponents say it fails to discourage wrong-doing and leaves injured parties with no viable remedy. injury attorney

Florida’s waiver of sovereign immunity is outlined in F.S. 768.28, a lengthy and complex statute that allows for various stipulations on suing the government or government employees for negligence. Even if you win, your damage award will be capped at $200,000 a person and $300,000 total per claim (no matter how many claimants), unless the state legislature passes a bill that allows for a higher amount in any given case. This doesn’t mean it’s never worthwhile to pursue compensation from a government agency or worker if you’re injured owing to their negligence, but it’s important to understand there will be a number of challenges, which is why hiring an experienced Orlando injury attorney is so critical.

A recent case considered by the Georgia Supreme Court considered a wrongful death claim involving the tragic death of a student engaged in horseplay in an unsupervised classroom. His parents alleged it was the result of negligence in whole or in part of the teacher who left the room. However, the teacher was a governmental employee, and as such, the question of official immunity was raised.  Continue reading →

Published on:

Restaurants are a common site of trips, slips and falls, especially during the busy holiday season. The National Restaurant Association recommends all restaurants regularly monitor the coefficient of friction at various surfaces, replace worn or fraying carpets or mats, repair uneven surfaces on walkways, use non-slip matting in the kitchens or other areas that tend to be wet, wax carefully, keep pathways clear and promptly clean up reported or discovered spills. All of these practices will help reduce Florida slip-and-fall injuries. slip and fall attorney

Recently, the Mississippi Supreme Court considered a restaurant trip-and-fall case involving an elderly customer and an allegedly errant high chair, one leg protruding into the customer’s pathway, resulting in a fall that caused serious injuries to his face and shoulder.

According to court records, the incident occurred five years ago at a fast-food restaurant in Mississippi while 76-year-old plaintiff was on a road trip with his family, returning to their home in Missouri. After plaintiff received his order, set his food down at a table and walked to the condiment station. He picked up several condiments, but then thought he heard one of the workers speaking to him. He turned to face the counter, but then discovered the employee was actually talking to a different customer. He turned to walk back to his table and as he did so, his left foot struck the leg of a high chair that was protruding into the aisle. Soon after, he reportedly overheard one of the employees ask a co-worker what the highchair had been doing in that location. A supervisor instructed someone to move it.  Continue reading →

Published on:

For many kids, Halloween – and of course, trick-or-treat – is highly anticipated and the source of many magical childhood memories. However, there are also a host of frightening dangers lurking on Halloween that have nothing to do with ghosts or goblins. injury lawyer

Attorneys for child injury victims in Orlando are committed to helping raise awareness of some of the most common child Halloween injuries, in the hopes families will face fewer emergency room trips this year.

From traffic safety to pumpkin carving to candle hazards, the hazards are seemingly endless.

Published on:

Typically if you are injured at work, you should be able to collect workers’ compensation insurance. However, because workers’ compensation is considered an “exclusive remedy,” your employer is immune from further litigation related to that injury – even if the company was negligent. There are a few exceptions, but they are very narrow.cars

What’s more, this immunity extends also to co-workers who are acting in the course and scope of employment. That means even if your co-worker does something that is extremely careless and you wind up hurt, you still can’t sue them. But (there’s always a “but”) there could be an exception if your co-worker was not acting in the course and scope of employment. This would apply to an extremely narrow set of circumstances, particularly if the plaintiff qualified for workers’ compensation. However, it is possible, as the recent Washington Supreme Court case of Entila v. Cook illustrates.

According to court records, defendant and plaintiff were both employees of the same company. One was heading into work, and one was leaving. The injury occurred as plaintiff was crossing the street on an access road belonging to the company, while defendant, operating his personal vehicle on that same road after finishing his shift. Defendant struck plaintiff with his vehicle, causing plaintiff to suffer serious personal injuries. Continue reading →

Published on:

In many Florida injury lawsuits, plaintiffs must prove the defendant is negligent. That means proving defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff, defendant breached that duty, the breach caused plaintiff’s injuries and the injuries are compensable. However, there are some situations in which one need not prove the defendant was negligent. One can assert vicarious liability for the negligent actions of another person. There are several examples, but one of those stems from ownership of a dangerous instrumentality.bobcat

The dangerous instrumentality doctrine is one that stems from common law and it holds that the owner of an inherently dangerous tool is liable for any injuries resulting from the operation of that tool. It’s a form of strict vicarious liability. In Florida, the 1938 state supreme court case of Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson resulted in the finding that motor vehicles are a type of dangerous instrumentality. That’s why an owner of a motor vehicle in Florida can be held liable for injuries caused by someone else’s negligent operation of said vehicle. The idea is that if you trust someone with a motor vehicle with knowledge and consent, you are responsible if it’s used negligently on a public road.

But there are questions that arise occasionally about what other objects may be considered a dangerous instrumentality. It matters a great deal when we’re considering which persons or entities can be liable. One such case recently before Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal was that of Newton v. Caterpillar et al, stemming from a work injury.  Continue reading →

Published on:

A man using chemical paint remover was seriously injured when the substance ignited and burned him. He and his wife filed a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of that chemical, alleging the warning labels were inadequate and the product was defectively designed. paintcan

A federal district court in Illinois granted summary judgment to defendant in Suarez v. W.M. Barr & Co. on both of these counts. Recently, though, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed in part. Specifically, the court ruled that while the label on the product did accurately describe the primary risks for consumers, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the product was defectively design based on theories of strict liability and negligence.

Strict product liability is a legal rule that holds sellers, distributors and/ or manufacturers of defective products liable to the person injured by that product, regardless of whether defendant was negligent. In a claim alleging negligence, a defendant’s standard of conduct is central to proving liability. That is, defendant acted in a way that fell below the standard of reasonable conduct. In strict liability cases, however, the idea is that it doesn’t matter how defendant acted. Instead, what must be shown is that the product was in unreasonably dangerous condition, the seller expected/ intended the product would reach the consumer without changes and plaintiff was injured by defective product.  Continue reading →

Published on:

An injury lawsuit filed in a federal court in Los Angeles seeks class action status on behalf of all keyless car drivers. caringarage

The litigation alleges auto manufacturers should have initiated a recall of millions of keyeless entry and ignition models because the vehicles apparently did not shut off automatically when the driver failed to press the start and stop buttons. This, plaintiffs allege, put drivers at risk of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Already, plaintiffs assert there have been more than dozen deaths associated with this issue. There have also been numerous “close calls,” wherein people were able to evade danger before it turned deadly. Continue reading →

Contact Information