Published on:

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Florida issued a written opinion in a nursing home negligence case brought by the estate of a woman who died while in the care of the defendant nursing home. The main issue presented for the court was whether the arbitration agreement signed by the resident’s daughter could bind the resident’s estate to arbitrate any claims it had against the nursing home. Ultimately, the court determined that the arbitration agreement was not binding against the estate, and it allowed the case to proceed through the court system.

Signing a ContractThe Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in the case was the executor of the estate of a woman who had died while in the care of the defendant nursing home. When the resident was admitted to the facility, she was not competent to make her own medical decisions, so her daughter was there to assist her. Once the daughter identified the nursing home facility that she thought would be best for her mother, she signed a “Voluntary Arbitration Agreement and Acknowledgement,” stating that any claims that arose from the facility’s care of the resident would be settled through arbitration rather than through the court system.

At the time the daughter signed the form, the daughter did not have power of attorney for her mother. In fact, it was undisputed that she was merely acting as a health care proxy for her mother. However, the daughter signed the agreement, indicating she was her mother’s legal representative, but she listed her relationship as “proxy” later in the form.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Earlier this month, a Florida appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case that involved a discussion of the required elements of a Florida premises liability lawsuit. In the case, which involved a woman’s slip-and-fall accident that occurred in a bank parking lot, the court ultimately found in favor of the plaintiff. Specifically, the court held that even though the hazard allegedly causing the plaintiff’s fall was obvious, summary judgment in favor of the defendant was improper.

Pin PadThe Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a customer of the defendant bank. When the plaintiff went to make a deposit through the drive-up window and noticed that the bank was closed, she decided to make her deposit through the Automated Teller Machine (ATM). As the plaintiff approached the ATM, she noticed that the area around the ATM was under construction with a barricade a few feet in front of the ATM.

According to the plaintiff, there was a sign on the barricade with an arrow, instructing patrons to walk around the barricade to reach the ATM. The plaintiff attempted to negotiate her way around the barricade, but stepped in a “pot hole”, causing her to fall. She sustained injuries to her foot, leg, neck, and back.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Earlier this year, an appellate court in Georgia issued an opinion in a car accident case that required the court to discuss and apply the negligent entrustment doctrine. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of the employer’s knowledge of the at-fault employee’s checkered driving history to survive summary judgment.

Handing Over KeysThe Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in an accident caused by a drunk driver. The drunk driver was operating a truck that he had borrowed from his employer. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against not just the drunk driver but also the employer. The plaintiff claimed that the employer was negligent in allowing the employee to use the truck.

The plaintiff presented evidence that during the driver’s employment interview, he disclosed the fact that he had several prior convictions for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Evidently, the employer pulled a criminal background check for the employee, which came back clean, but that check only looked back three years. The employer never pulled a driving history for the employee.

Continue reading →

Published on:

In a recent case, a court decided that a gas station could be held liable after a driver who was delivering gas was injured on the gas station’s property. A tanker driver who had just delivered a load of gasoline to the station was hit by another car and later brought a lawsuit against the other driver, the gas station, and the gas station’s manager.

Gas PumpThe driver had parked his truck at the station in the area for delivering gasoline. He also placed three traffic cones by the truck. He then went into the store to fill out some information about the delivery, made the gas delivery, and went to another part of the station to measure the station’s tank levels as required by the station owner. He took one of the cones with him and placed it in the area where he was measuring the tanks. While he was measuring the levels, he dropped a tank cap into the well and got onto his hands and knees to pick up the cap. As he was doing this, another car backed into him.

A trial court originally found the gas station and its manager were not liable and granted summary judgment in their favor. The court said the driver’s knowledge of the danger was greater than or equal to the gas station’s knowledge of the danger. The driver appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Police officers, like most government employees, are entitled to immunity from certain personal injury lawsuits under the doctrine of government immunity. This may even be the case when a police officer’s actions result in a serious injury or death. Government immunity does not apply in all situations, but in most cases, it will apply by default unless the injured party is able to show that the government employee’s conduct was reckless, intentional, or otherwise not qualified for immunity. A recent case illustrates how a court may apply government immunity to a police officer’s actions, defeating a personal injury plaintiff’s case.

Police CarAgrabrite v. Neer:  The Facts

Agrabrite was involved in a car accident when she was struck head-on by another motorist who was fleeing from the police at the time of the accident. The other motorist died in the collision, and Agrabrite was seriously injured. Agrabrite filed a personal injury lawsuit against several of the police officers involved in the chase, claiming that they were responsible for her injuries.

Before the case was submitted to a jury, the police officers sought summary judgment. They claimed that, as government employees, they were entitled to immunity from the lawsuit. In response, Agrabrite argued that the “wanton and reckless” conduct exhibited by the officers prevented immunity from attaching to the officers’ conduct.

Continue reading →

Published on:

A few weeks ago, an appellate court in New York issued an interesting opinion in a car accident case discussing the ever-present element of foreseeability in personal injury cases. In the case, Hain v. Jamison, the court ended up agreeing with the trial judge that the plaintiff’s wife’s death was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant farm owner’s negligence in allowing an animal to escape.

CalfThe Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is the husband of a woman who was struck and killed by a passing car as she tried to help an escaped farm animal that had wandered onto the road. After his wife’s death, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against both the driver of the car that struck his wife as well as the owner of the escaped animal. This opinion deals with the question of whether the farm owner’s alleged negligence in failing to properly maintain a fence to secure the animal could foreseeably have caused the death of the plaintiff’s wife.

The trial judge initially denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, but that decision was reversed on appeal to the intermediate appellate court. That court held that the defendant’s alleged negligence “merely furnished the occasion for, but did not cause, [the plaintiff’s wife] to enter the roadway, where she was struck.” The plaintiff appealed to the state’s highest court.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Almost every type of lawsuit has a time limit within which the case must be filed to be considered timely. These time limits, more commonly referred to as statutes of limitations, provide certainty to those who are involved in an accident and believe that they may face liability. However, statutes of limitations are strictly enforced and can often result in meritorious cases being dismissed for no other reason than the plaintiff filing the lawsuit too late.

RollerbladersOne of the issues that arises with statutes of limitations is determining which one applies. In most states, including Florida, there are different statutes of limitations for different types of lawsuits. For example, in Florida, the statute of limitations for general negligence cases is four years. However, for medical malpractice cases, the statute of limitations is just two years. In cases alleging the negligence of a government employee or entity, the statute of limitations is three years. Furthermore, when a case is filed against a government entity, additional procedures must be followed, or the case will not be considered timely and may be rejected.

The plaintiff in a recent premises liability case learned these lessons the hard way when an appellate court dismissed her case for being filed past the applicable statute of limitations.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion stemming from a car accident involving a drunk driver, his passenger, and the company that insured both of them. In the case, Peden v. State Farm, the court reversed a lower court’s ruling that had held State Farm did not unreasonably delay payment to Ms. Peden. As a result of the court’s decision, the case was remanded back to the trial court to proceed toward trial.

Parked VanThe Facts of the Case

Mr. Graf had just bought his fiancée a new van for her birthday. To celebrate the occasion, the couple gathered friends for a small party, where alcohol was served. The plaintiff, Peden, was one of the couple’s friends.

At some point during the evening, Peden and several others got into the van so that Mr. Graf could take a picture of the group in the new van. However, Mr. Graf then got into the driver’s seat and took the car on a joy ride. He crashed the van, seriously injuring Peden, who then filed a personal injury lawsuit against Graf.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Mississippi issued a written opinion in a truck accident case involving two separate accidents. In the case, Ready v. RWI Transportation, the court ultimately affirmed a judgment in favor of the defendant truck driver, who had caused a collision about three-quarters of a mile ahead of where the plaintiff was injured when he slammed into the back of another vehicle that was stopped in traffic caused by the first accident.

Truck TiresThe Facts of the Case

A truck driver employed by RWI Transportation caused an accident when he made an improper lane change on the highway, colliding with another vehicle. Both vehicles were disabled as a result and came to a rest in the middle of the road, blocking traffic. A long line of traffic formed behind the accident.

Mr. Ready was driving toward the accident when he crashed his vehicle into a UPS truck that had stopped in the far-right lane due to the traffic caused by the accident up ahead. Ready then filed a personal injury lawsuit against RWI Transportation and its truck driver, claiming that the driver of the truck was negligent in causing the accident and that the initial accident was the cause of the subsequent accident between his vehicle and the UPS truck.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Earlier this year, manufacturing giant Johnson & Johnson was found to be liable in a product liability case involving the continued use of its Shower to Shower talc-based baby powder product. As it turns out, there has recently been significant research indicating that the continued use of talc-based baby powder in the genital area can cause ovarian cancer. According to one recent news source discussing the case, the plaintiff was a woman who had developed ovarian cancer after the continued use of the product.

Gavel and BooksAccording to the news source, Johnson & Johnson refuses to accept that its product can cause ovarian cancer, and it has initiated an appeal process, hoping to overturn the plaintiff’s verdict. Specifically, Johnson & Johnson claims that the jurors were tainted because they had been potentially exposed to ads run by the plaintiff’s attorneys notifying women that baby powder may cause ovarian cancer. The result of the appeal has yet to be determined, but for now the woman’s verdict will stand.

This case is the third in a recent string of cases finding Johnson & Johnson responsible for ovarian cancer developed in women who had used their product over the course of years. In total, the amount of the baby powder lawsuits is approximately $195 million. These cases seem to just be the beginning of what could be a very significant series of lawsuits. Indeed, approximately 2,500 other women have similar claims pending against Johnson & Johnson.

Continue reading →

Contact Information