$2,900,000 Car Accident
$1,000,000+ Wrongful Death
$1,000,000+ Workers Compensation
$1,000,000 Electrocution
$750,000 Sexual Assault
$750,000 Truck Accident
$700,000 Slip and Fall
$700,000 Car Accident
Justia Lawyer Rating
Greater Fort Myers Chamber of Commerce
American Association for Justice
Bonita Springs Area Chamber of Commerce
Southwest Florida Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
The Best of Cape Coral 2020

Large box stores service thousands of customers each day. While such stores have an obligation to take measures to prevent harm, hazards often arise that cause slip and fall accidents. While people hurt in falls in retail stores have the right to seek compensation from the party that owns the store, proving liability can be difficult. Recently, a Florida court discussed a plaintiff’s burden of proof in a case arising out of a slip and fall on a transient substance in a store. If you were hurt in a fall, it is smart to meet with a dedicated Florida premises liability attorney to assess what evidence you must produce to recover compensation.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff accompanied his wife on a shopping trip to a warehouse store owned by the defendant. During the visit, he went to the freezer aisle to search for tacos for his wife. He was pushing a shopping cart when he suddenly slipped and fell, injuring his lower back. When he stood up, he observed a puddle on the floor and water leaking from the ceiling above where he fell.

Allegedly, the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not know how long the water was present prior to his fall and stated he did not see it before he fell. The defendant moved for dismissal via summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff had not shown that it knew or should have known of the existence of the puddle. The court ultimately denied the motion, ruling that the issue of whether the defendant violated the duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition should rest with the jury. Continue reading ›

While many people find riding motorcycles thrilling, collisions involving motorcycles often cause fatal injuries. If the estate of a person who died in a motorcycle crash seeks damages in a wrongful death lawsuit, it typically will have to rely on testimony from outside sources, like an accident reconstructionist, to demonstrate how the collision occurred. In a recent Florida ruling issued in a motorcycle crash case, a court discussed the admissibility of the opinion of an accident reconstruction expert. If you lost a loved one in a motorcycle accident, it is advisable to speak to a Florida motorcycle accident attorney to discuss what damages you may be owed.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant’s vehicle collided with the decedent’s motorcycle, causing the decedent to suffer fatal harm. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging he negligently operated his vehicle, thereby causing the collision. After the completion of discovery, the defendant asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims via summary judgment. The plaintiff filed a response in opposition.

It is alleged that the defendant argued the evidence undisputedly showed that he was making a lawful turn at the time of the crash while the decedent was performing a wheelie. The plaintiff relied on the testimony of the lead traffic homicide detective in refuting the defendant’s assertions regarding how the accident occurred, thereby demonstrating a material factual dispute. The defendant argued, however, that the detective’s testimony was inadmissible. Continue reading ›

In many divorce actions, one spouse will ask the court to award permanent alimony after the divorce is final. The courts must weigh numerous factors in determining whether an alimony award is appropriate, including whether the party from whom spousal support is requested has the ability to pay. Merely because the court finds that a party does not have the means to pay alimony does not necessarily meant that spousal support should not be granted, however, as demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling. If you or your spouse intend to seek alimony via a divorce petition, it is in your best interest to meet with a Florida divorce attorney to discuss your rights.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

Allegedly, the husband and the wife married in 1996, and in 2018, the wife filed a petition for dissolution in which she sought permanent alimony for a long-term marriage as defined by Florida law. She also sought bridge-the-gap and rehabilitative alimony and asked the court to require the husband to obtain a life insurance policy naming her as the beneficiary. The court issued a final dissolution of marriage, denying the wife’s requests with regards to alimony and life insurance.

It is reported that in doing so, the court determined that the wife had monthly expenses of approximately $2,800.00 while the husband had monthly expenses of approximately $6,900.00. The court also noted that there appeared to be a discrepancy between the wife’s financial affidavits and her bank accounts but stated that her bank accounts indicated a need for alimony. The court ultimately found that the husband lacked the ability to pay alimony, and therefore, declined to determine whether the wife had a need for such support. The wife appealed. Continue reading ›

Florida has a thriving maritime industry, and many people work on ships that dock in ports throughout the state. While people who suffer injuries on such ships can pursue damages from the responsible parties, the Limitation of Liability Act (Act) typically dictates how their claims will be handled and can limit what compensation they can recover. Recently, a Florida court discussed the Act and its implications in a case in which a man working on a ship suffered catastrophic injuries. If you were hurt while working on a ship, it is in your best interest to speak to a skillful Florida personal injury attorney about your rights.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the yachting company hired the plaintiff’s employer each year for the repair and maintenance of its yacht. The plaintiff, a deckhand, was working on the yacht when the ball of a crane broke free from its chain and struck the yacht’s handrails, which then flew into the plaintiff. He ultimately suffered the loss of his right foot and a traumatic brain injury due to the impact.

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the yachting company to recover compensation for his injuries. The defendant yachting company sought an injunction limiting the plaintiff’s damages under the Act. The trial court lifted the injunction, and the defendant yachting company appealed. Continue reading ›

When a couple with children divorces, they will typically ask the court to determine their parental rights, including how custody should be divided. Courts weigh numerous factors prior to issuing custody decisions, including whether either party engaged in acts of domestic violence. Once a family court issues a timesharing order, though, that order will dictate parental rights regardless of whether another court determines that custody should be modified due to domestic violence. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling in which the court reversed a domestic violence injunction to the extent it altered the father’s custody rights. If you have questions regarding your custody rights, it is advisable to consult an experienced Florida family law attorney as soon as possible.

The Facts of the Case

Reportedly, the wife filed for divorce in 2016. Shortly after she filed the divorce petition, she filed a petition for a domestic violence injunction against the husband. In the domestic violence petition, she set forth numerous instances where the husband threatened her with acts of violence, verbally abused her, and shoved her in the years preceding the petition.

Allegedly, the court entered a default injunction against the husband but did not include a provision regarding the parties’ timesharing of their minor children. In 2020, the court vacated the injunction and scheduled a new hearing because the husband had not received proper notice of the final hearing on the injunction. Following the hearing, the court again issued an injunction and granted the wife 100% of the timesharing rights. The husband appealed, arguing that the injunction conflicted with the family court custody order. Continue reading ›

Parties often dispute liability in cases arising out of car accidents. As such, information demonstrating the extent of the damage to the cars involved can help to show how the accident occurred and to prove that the collision produced sufficient force to bring about the plaintiff’s reported injuries. If a defendant refuses to share such pictures of his or her vehicle after the accident, though, it may unjustly impact the plaintiff’s ability to prove its claims. Recently, a Florida court discussed what information is discoverable in a car accident case in which the defendant argued work-product privilege protected him from having to disclose certain photographs. If you were involved in a car crash, it is smart to meet with a trusted Florida car accident lawyer about your potential claims.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff and defendant were involved in a crash that caused the plaintiff to sustain injuries to her back and neck. The plaintiff subsequently filed a federal lawsuit against the defendant, asserting that his negligence caused the crash and her consequential harm. During the discovery phase of the case, the plaintiff sent the defendant multiple requests for the production of documents, in which she sought photographs of the automobiles involved in the accident.

Allegedly, the defendant provided some pictures but objected to the requests as seeking information that was protected by the work-product privilege. The plaintiff then moved for the court to overrule the defendant’s objections. Continue reading ›

Truck accidents often cause catastrophic injuries, and in many instances, trucking companies lack adequate insurance to cover the injured party’s losses. Thus, people hurt in such collisions may turn to their insurance companies to recover underinsured motorist benefits. While the law precludes people who are hurt from obtaining windfalls, a defendant deemed liable for a plaintiff’s harm will only be granted a set off of the plaintiff’s settlement with another party in limited circumstances.

A Florida court recently discussed setoffs in an opinion issued in a trucking case in which the plaintiff obtained $4 million from his insurance company and was granted over $30 million in damages from the defendant. If you were hurt in a collision involving a commercial truck, you should consult a capable Florida truck accident lawyer to discuss your options for seeking compensation.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was a passenger in a car that was t-boned by a truck driven by the defendant driver and owned by the defendant owner. He suffered serious injuries in the accident and filed a lawsuit alleging negligence claims against the defendants and claims against his insurance carrier for underinsured motorist benefits. Two years later, he settled with his insurance company for $4 million.

Continue reading ›

Generally, when people are involved in car accidents, they will request each other’s insurance information before leaving the scene. While it is important for parties involved in a crash to obtain certain information from one another if a lawsuit arises out of the collision, the court may preclude them from introducing evidence of insurance at trial. In a recent Florida opinion in which the defendant argued the verdict was unjust due to references to insurance throughout the trial, an appellate court discussed the purpose of barring the introduction of evidence regarding insurance in car accident cases. If you were hurt in a collision, it is smart to speak to an experienced Florida car accident attorney about your potential claims.

The Accident and Trial

Reportedly, the defendant driver struck the plaintiff’s vehicle from behind while driving the defendant owner’s car. The plaintiff suffered injuries in the accident and subsequently sought damages from the defendants in a personal injury lawsuit. The defendants admitted liability but argued that the accident did not cause the plaintiff’s harm. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed.

Evidence of Insurance at Trial in Cases Arising Out of Car Accidents

The defendants’ primary argument on appeal was that the trial court did not take sufficient measures to preclude the introduction of evidence regarding insurance coverage during the trial, and therefore, caused them undue prejudice and warranted a new trial. The appellate court rejected their assertions and affirmed the jury’s verdict. Continue reading ›

While it is prudent for people with substantial assets to draft wills and appoint personal representatives of their estates to handle their affairs after they depart, doing so does not always mean that no conflicts will arise after they die. For example, a personal representative’s interests may be adverse to those of the estate, which may require the court to appoint an administrator ad litem. In a recent Florida opinion, a court discussed the purpose of appointing an administrator ad litem in a matter in which the decedent’s daughter and wife disputed how the estate should be handled. If you have questions regarding the administration of an estate, it is in your best interest to meet with a seasoned Florida estate planning attorney regarding your options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the decedent died in 2019, leaving behind a substantial estate that included ownership interests in a business and an art collection, both of which were valued at over $30 million. The plaintiff, who was the second wife of the decedent, was named personal representative of the estate. In 2020, the decedent’s daughter filed a petition for the appointment of an administrator ad litem, citing concerns that the plaintiff had a conflict of interest as the personal representative and challenging certain transfers that were made in the last months of the decedent’s life when he was suffering from dementia.

Allegedly, the plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to declare the proceedings adversarial in nature. The court rejected her reasoning and appointed an administrator, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing the appointment was too broad and that the court erred in finding the proceedings were not adversarial. Continue reading ›

Store owners have an obligation to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, to avoid harming their customers. While store owners can be held liable for breaching this duty, simply because a customer falls and suffers harm does not mean that the store will be deemed responsible. For example, in some cases, the courts will find that the condition that caused the injured party’s harm was so conspicuous and commonplace that the injured party should have discovered it and avoided injury. The open and obvious doctrine was the topic of a recent Florida opinion in a matter in which the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. If you were harmed in a fall at a store, it is smart to consult a dedicated Florida personal injury attorney to discuss what evidence you must produce to demonstrate liability.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was shopping in the defendant store when she tripped and fell over a crate that was in the middle of the aisle, suffering personal injuries. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging it negligently allowed a dangerous condition to remain on the premises, causing her fall.

Reportedly, at the plaintiff’s deposition, she testified that she had previously worked at the store and had visited it on over fifty occasions prior to the fall, during which she had seen crates and boxes on the floor. Further, she did not know who placed the crate in the aisle, how long it had been there, or whether it was placed there by one of the defendant’s employees. After discovery closed, the defendant moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims via summary judgment. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading ›

Contact Information