Articles Tagged with Orlando personal injury lawyer

Published on:

Amid ongoing incidents of violence at schools and colleges, the California Supreme Court has ruled that colleges DO owe their students a duty of care to protect them from foreseeable violence during curricular activities. This responsibility, the court ruled, was owing to the power dynamic between schools and students, which amounts to a “special relationship.”

This was a reversal of a previous appellate court decision, which held 2 to 1 that universities and colleges had no general legal obligation to protect adult students from the criminal actions of other students.

The case involves a 20-year-old pre-med student who was viciously attacked with a knife in a chemistry classroom by a fellow University of California at Los Angeles student. Her attacker had previously been diagnosed with paranoid delusions and possible schizophrenia and was undergoing outpatient treatment at the university at the time of the incident. He was later found not guilty by reason of insanity. Plaintiff’s argument against the university was the school breached its duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to protect her from foreseeable violence. Continue reading →

Published on:

The doctrine of avoidable consequences, sometimes referred to as the “duty to mitigate,” is an affirmative defense that can be raised by defendants in personal injury cases to argue the plaintiff was partially or fully responsible due to failure to exercise reasonable care to reduce the injury or damages suffered. 

Sometimes, the doctrine of avoidable consequences is confused with the doctrine of comparative negligence. Both are issues raised by the defense, the main difference is while comparative negligence involves the allowance of a court finding that numerous parties contributed to the initial injury and therefore share liability damages, the avoidable consequences doctrine asserts plaintiff had a duty to prevent further injury after the the initial legal wrong occurred.

Plaintiffs must pay attention to this because it can substantially reduce damages (compensation you are owed) following a personal injury.  Continue reading →

Published on:

When a person is injured as a result of the negligence of another who owed them a duty of care, that individual usually has the right to pursue compensation under Florida law. That part is pretty well-known. What is less understood is that certain loved ones of the person injured may also pursue their own claim for damages under a type of compensation called “loss of consortium.” 

A claim for loss of consortium alleges damages suffered by a loved one of a person who has been injured or killed as a result of a defendant’s negligent, intentional or otherwise wrongful act. Loss of consortium claims vary widely from state-to-state, with some imposing strict limitations on who has the right to a loss of consortium claim. Typically, it’s filed by one’s spouse, and asserts the loss of “normal marital relations,” which can be a euphemism for sexual intercourse, but also for loss of companionship. The exact measure of this kind of loss is speculative, which is why only an experienced injury attorney should handle such claims. Proving damages often requires delving into the strength of the bond and the closeness of the relationship.

In Florida, unlike in some other states, the law allows for claims of loss of consortium brought by others besides one’s spouse. Specifically, parents may sue for loss of consortium of a child and children may sue for loss of consortium of a parent. Rights to these claims are found in several statutes, including F.S. 768.21Continue reading →

Published on:

In most trip-and-fall or slip-and-fall lawsuits, injured persons hoping to prevail have to prove actual or constructive knowledge. That is, they have to show the property owner/ manager knew or should have known about the hazard, either because:

  • They created it;
  • They were informed of it;
  • It existed for such a length of time, it should have been discovered in the course of reasonable care. 

It is the plaintiff who bears this burden of proof.  Continue reading →

Published on:

Hot air balloon rides, which have been around since 1783, are thrilling, romantic and even relaxing. They can also potentially be dangerous, particularly when the operator has limited experience. 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recorded 775 hot air balloon accidents between 1964 and 2014, with 70 of those involving fatalities. Of those who died, 16 occurred between 2002 and 2012. Although the agency stresses that hot air ballooning is relatively safe, there have been a number of deadly incidents in recent years that raise concern. Consider, for example, the hot air balloon that caught fire mid-air over Egypt, killing 19 of the 21 people on board.

The recent case of Roberts v. T.H.E. Insurance Co. was, thankfully, not a fatal hot air balloon accident case. In fact, the plaintiff wasn’t even in the balloon at the time of the accident. However, she did reportedly suffer injuries when the operator, taking his chances with tethered rides on a windy day, didn’t properly affix the tethers, according to court records. When the wind kicked up, the basket came barreling toward plaintiff, knocking her over and causing her to suffer injury.  Continue reading →

Contact Information