Florida Injury Lawyer Blog

Restitution Can Provide Additional Compensation for Crash Victims

November 9, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

When someone’s negligence causes injury to another, victims can pursue compensation. Negligence is generally understood as the failure to use reasonable care when one was required to do so. In some cases, injury to another is the result of a criminal act. On the road, some criminal acts also amount to negligence, though the criminal and civil cases will be handled by the separate courts, respectively.

The primary purpose of a criminal court is to attain justice for the state (on behalf of the victim). The purpose of civil court is to ascertain whether one is owed compensation, and if so, determine how much is necessary to make the victim “whole.” Restitution to the victim is not the primary purpose of the criminal justice system – but it can be a consideration for certain crimes. The impact this will have on a pending civil case should be discussed with an experienced injury attorney in Cape Coral.

F.S. 775.089 holds that restitution can be ordered by the court (in addition to any punishment) for:

Damages or losses caused directly or indirectly by defendant’s offense;
Damages or losses related to the defendant’s criminal episode.

Victim’s Auto Insurer Pays Liability Damages to Parents of Joyriding Teens Killed in Crash

November 7, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Most car accident auto insurance settlements are handled quietly and often rather quickly. Those involving the death may take longer, but even then, it often doesn’t generate headlines. A recent case out of South Florida was different for the fact that an auto liability insurer, while conceding all the evidence unequivocally shows their client to be the clear victim, agreed to pay families of several teens who died while joyriding in a stolen car.

It’s somewhat of a unique case, but it also illustrates the various avenues of recovery that may be available to those involved in serious car accidents, even when there is evidence they are partially (or, as in this case, largely) to blame.

According to The Tampa Bay Times, the 29-year-old insured was on his way to work at a grocery store in Tampa around 4 a.m. when a sport utility vehicle barreled through a red light at 112 mph, slamming into his compact car. He would later learn that the vehicle had been stolen and the driver was 16-years-old with no license. The driver and two of his three passengers – all young teens – were killed. A fourth survived and was later charged with grand theft auto. Continue reading ›

Coming and Going Rule Analyzed in Crashes Involving Workers

November 5, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

If you’re injured in a car accident or have lost someone you love in a crash, one of the questions important to ask is whether the negligent driver was acting in the course and scope of their employment. This matters because if they were furthering the interests of their employer at the time of the crash, the employer could be held vicariously liable.

Vicarious liability of employees is allowed thanks to the doctrine of respondeat superior, which is Latin for, “let the master answer.” Vicarious liability does not require a showing that the company necessarily did anything wrong. Rather, one must show the employee – acting on behalf of the employer – was negligent. We see this a lot in trucking accident cases or bus accident cases, but it can also be applied with many other types of workers as well. In our increasingly mobile workforce, it’s not uncommon for employees to be on the move regularly throughout the course of their work day, or to be running errands for their employer outside of normal business hours.

In cases of professional drivers, vicarious liability may be easy to establish because it’s the employee’s job to drive. If they were on-the-clock, it’s pretty easily settled. However, there are some nuances to this. Some of the same legal doctrines that apply in workers’ compensation cases can come into play in these cases too. Continue reading ›

Widow of Worker Killed at Roadside Job Site Wins $6 Million Settlement

November 2, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

The widow of a worker killed after being struck by a truck while in a construction zone will receive a $6 million settlement from the defendant companies involved.

Attorneys for the estate of deceased worker had alleged the construction companies on site were negligent in failing to erect the required drums or traffic barriers that would have protected the workers. The 38-year-old worker from Wisconsin was completing some electrical work just a few feet from an intersection when a semitractor-trailer tried to make a sharp right turn. The worker’s back was to the intersection at the time he was struck, and he had no time to react or jump out of the way. The widow’s wrongful death attorney alleged the construction companies put this worker out into the field with no protection.

Wrongful death claims were filed against the trucking company, the trucking company’s driver, the general contractor for the construction site and the subcontractor. A worker on site testified the majority of trucks that turned that same corner jumped the curb. Photos of the site proved this, revealing tire track marks well worn over the curb. Despite this, the construction company did not put up the necessary barriers. Continue reading ›

Collecting on UIM Insurance in Work-Related Crash

October 29, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Typically in the event of a work-related accident, a worker’s only recompense is workers’ compensation. There is an exception if there is third-party liability (i.e., someone other than the employer was at-fault). But if the work-related injury was the result of a motor vehicle accident and if the employer paid for auto insurance coverage, it is possible employees might also be able to pursue a claim from that insurer for the injuries. It will depend heavily on the terms of the policy.

Recently in a case decided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the question was whether an employer’s uninsured motorist carrier is entitled to subrogation on an under-insured (third-party) at-fault driver’s assets – including excess insurance coverage – for the amount previously paid to the injured party. The court answered no.

The case illustrates how complex these claims can be when they involve commercial vehicles (which tend to cause more damage, and thus, more severe injuries) and large companies. Continue reading ›

Challenging Nursing Home Arbitration Agreements

October 27, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Nursing home arbitration agreements are better to avoid if at all possible. An increasing number of nursing homes include arbitration agreements in their admission paperwork, essentially mandating parties agree to forfeit their constitutional right to have a dispute decided in a court of law – publicly and in front of a jury. Instead, they agree to have disputes resolved in a non-public binding arbitration.

Arbitration does a disservice to those who have suffered nursing home abuse because:

Consumers are at a disadvantage. Arbitrators need to make a living. While the resident bringing the case is a one-time paying customer, corporate defendants will be involved again and again. Unfortunately, some arbitrators take this fact into account, and that high compensatory damages awarded to abused resident isn’t likely to get them repeat business with the corporate client.
It’s expensive. While nursing home residents often qualify for court fee waivers and trial judges are compensated by taxpayers, arbitrators are private judges who are charged for their services – anywhere from $400 to $1,000 hourly.
They aren’t often voluntary. They are typically offered as a “take-it-or-leave-it” option. Few understand the consequences of signing the arbitration agreement.

Company UIM Benefits Affirmed in Rear-End Collision Case

October 25, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Uninsured motorist benefits are critical for drivers in Florida. While not technically mandated (though insurers must offer it, and motorists must sign a waiver if they choose not to buy it), this coverage is often the only way to obtain adequate compensation for losses suffered in a Fort Myers car accident.

But just because you pay for this coverage doesn’t mean the insurer will pay up without a fight. Auto insurance companies are notorious for rooting out any and all possible loopholes to either deny coverage or minimize the amount payable. Fighting for just compensation is important to our injury lawyers, and we have a long track record of success in this arena. Many of these cases are resolved through negotiation – often long before trial and many times without even needing to file a lawsuit. However, we will not hesitate to bring a case to trial if that’s what is in the best interests of our clients.

Recently in Alabama, the state supreme court affirmed a jury verdict against a UIM insurer favoring a plaintiff in a car accident lawsuit that has been ongoing since 2011. Continue reading ›

Boating Accident Lawsuit Verdict Affirmed, Though Punitive Damages Deemed Excessive

October 24, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Boating is a popular outdoor activity in Florida, with the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) reporting some 932,000 registered vessels as of 2016. However, it can also be a potentially very dangerous one. There were more than 700 reported boating accidents in the state last year. A total of 67 people died – with 70 percent of operators involved in fatal boating accidents having no formal boater education.

While operator error is the most commonly-cited cause of Florida boating accidents, the failure of the vessel or one of its components can’t be overlooked. While the former would help establish liability on a theory of negligence, the latter would establish product liability. In order for product liability to be applicable, we would look at the mechanics of the vessel and whether it performed as expected and/ or whether consumers were warned about foreseeable dangers.

In a recent boating accident case out of Louisiana, the state supreme court there affirmed a $125,000 verdict against a boating manufacturer, but did find the punitive damage award of $23 million to be excessive. In turn, the court amended the punitive damage judgment to $4.25 million. Continue reading ›

Establishing Vicarious Liability for Crash on Theory of Respondeat Superior

October 21, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Most car accident lawsuits are a simple matter of proving negligence, shown by establishing:

Duty owed to plaintiff (i.e., duty to other motorists to obey laws and act in a reasonably prudent manner);
Breach of duty (carelessness or violation of law);
Causation (breach of duty caused the accident);
Damages (plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the accident).

However, there are some Florida auto accident cases that delve into more complex areas of law because they involve a negligent driver who was either on-the-job or at least furthering an employer’s business at the time of the crash. In these cases, the employer can be held vicariously liable for the worker’s negligence. This means plaintiff doesn’t have to prove employer was negligent, only that worker was in fact an employee (as opposed to an independent contractor) and was acting in the scope of employment when crash occurred. This legal theory is referred to as “respondeat superior,” which is Latin for “Let the master answer.”

If there is evidence an employer was negligent also (i.e., negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision, negligent vehicle maintenance, etc.), the company could be found both directly and vicariously liable. A skilled personal injury attorney in Fort Myers can help you sort out the type of case you have and identify all potential defendants. Continue reading ›

Report: DUI Conviction Wasn’t Enough to Keep Bus Driver Banned from Work

October 18, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Commercial drivers – particularly those who ferry human passengers or hazardous materials – are beholden to more stringent federal and state rules when it comes to their conduct on the road.

For instance, F.S. 322.61 disqualifies commercial drivers from operating a vehicle for a year if they are convicted of operating a commercial vehicle with a bodily-alcohol concentration of 0.04 or higher. For most other adult drivers, the limit is 0.08. If a commercial drivers is convicted of two or more serious offenses (i.e., reckless driving, following too closely, unlawful speed of 15 mph or more over the speed limit, causing a crash resulting in serious injury or death, etc.) in a span of three years, the driver will be disqualified from driving a commercial vehicle for 60 days.

However, there are some apparent loopholes, as a recent bus accident revealed. Last month, U.S. News & World Report detailed the background of a bus driver who ran a red light and slammed into another bus in New York City, killing himself and two others. It was later publicly revealed the driver had a history of crashes and even a drunk driving conviction. However, he was still legally permitted to drive under federal rules that grant “one strike” before a driver can be banned for life. Continue reading ›