Car Accident

Florida Court Discusses Respondeat Superior in Car Accident Cases

Published on: June 24, 2021 | Lusk, Drasites & Tolisano, P.A.

People who drive recklessly and cause collisions are often held liable for any injuries that arise due to the accidents. In some instances, other parties may be deemed accountable as well. For example, if a driver was working at the time of a crash, the driver’s employer may be found liable under a theory of respondeat superior. Employers will only be deemed responsible for the negligent acts of their employees in certain situations, however, as explained in a recent Florida opinion issued in a car accident case. If you were hurt in a crash, you could be owed damages, and it is prudent to meet with a knowledgeable Florida car accident attorney to assess what claims you may be able to pursue.

The Accident and Subsequent Claims

Allegedly, the plaintiff was injured in a collision with the defendant driver. At the time of the crash, the defendant was working temporarily in Florida. The defendant employer paid for his hotel room and rental car during the duration of his stay. The defendant driver was operating the rental car at the time of the crash. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging negligence claims against the driver and respondeat superior claims against the employer. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the driver was not operating in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the crash and, therefore, it could not be deemed liable. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Respondeat Superior Liability in Florida

Under Florida law, respondeat superior renders employers vicariously liable for the negligent acts of their employees that are committed within the scope and course of their employment. An employee’s actions are within the scope of employment if they occur substantially within the permitted space and time limits and are undertaken at least in part to serve the employer. Continue reading ›

Florida Court Discusses Juror Bias in a Car Accident Case

Published on: June 4, 2021 | Lusk, Drasites & Tolisano, P.A.

One of the core tenets of the American legal system is the right to have issues resolved by an impartial jury. As such, prior to a trial, attorneys for all parties will engage in a process through which they attempt to determine if any jurors harbor implicit or explicit biases that would prevent them from resolving factual issues impartially. If a court denies a party’s request to strike a biased juror, it may constitute grounds for having a verdict overturned, as demonstrated in a recent Florida opinion issued in a car accident case. If you suffered harm in a car crash, you have the right to seek damages, and you should meet with a dedicated Florida car accident lawyer regarding what compensation you may be able to recover.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was driving on a Florida highway when she was struck by the defendant. She suffered injuries to her neck and back in the collision, which required extensive treatment. As such, she filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant. The case proceeded to trial, and during the process of jury selection, the plaintiff’s attorney moved to exclude a juror because he stated he sympathized with defendants in car crash cases, believed defendants are treated unfairly, and had issues with insurance companies. Her motion was denied, and she later used a peremptory challenge to strike him but was ultimately forced to accept him as an objectionable juror. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

Evaluating Juror Bias

In assessing a juror’s competency, a court will evaluate whether the juror can set aside any prejudice or bias and issue a verdict solely on the instructions on the law provided by the court and the evidence presented by the parties. Although courts have significant leeway in determining a juror’s competency, if any reasonable doubt exists as to whether a juror’s state of mind is impartial, that juror must be excused for cause. Continue reading ›

Florida Court Discusses the Disclosure of Experts in Personal Injury Cases

Published on: April 23, 2021 | Lusk, Drasites & Tolisano, P.A.

Many car crashes cause significant injuries that require long-term care and assistance and result in significant losses of income. Thus, victims of collisions will often seek damages from the parties ultimately responsible for their harm. Liability and damages are frequently disputed in lawsuits arising out of car accidents, though, and it is not uncommon for parties to rely on experts to support their opinions. Experts must be disclosed to the opposing party, though, and if they are not, it may impact whether they can testify, as discussed in a recent Florida opinion. If you were injured in a collision brought about by someone else’s negligence, you might be able to recover damages, and you should meet with a knowledgeable Florida car accident lawyer as soon as possible.

The History of the Case

Reportedly, the plaintiff suffered harm in a collision caused by the defendants. The precise circumstances surrounding the accident and the damages sustained were not disclosed. It is clear, however, that the plaintiff sustained substantial injuries that resulted in the need for at-home care and caused a loss of earning capacity. Thus, she filed a lawsuit against the defendant in federal court. Prior to trial, the defendant retained experts to opine on the plaintiff’s life care costs and her loss of future earning capacity. The defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with experts by the disclosure deadline, though. As such, the plaintiff moved to preclude the defendant’s experts from testifying.

Disclosure of Experts in Personal Injury Cases

Under the federal rules of civil procedure, a party that fails to disclose an expert in a timely manner will generally be precluded from using the expert’s information or allowing the expert to testify at trial, unless the failure to promptly disclose the expert report was either harmless or substantially justified. The failure to disclose a report will be deemed harmless when it does not cause the party who is owed the report to suffer any prejudice. The court explained that prejudice occurs when an untimely disclosure prevents a party from thoroughly preparing its case via depositions of expert witnesses. Continue reading ›

Florida Court Discusses Discovery in Car Accident Cases

Published on: March 14, 2021 | Lusk, Drasites & Tolisano, P.A.

Typically, if a person injured in a car accident enters into a settlement agreement with the party responsible for the crash before a lawsuit is filed, it will be considered a complete resolution of the claims. In some cases, though, it may be unclear whether the parties actually entered into a contractual settlement agreement, and the injured party will proceed with litigation. Recently, a Florida court discussed the right of a defendant to question a plaintiff’s attorney regarding the settlement of a claim in a case in which the defendant argued the plaintiff was improperly seeking damages despite previously settling claims arising out of the underlying accident. If you were injured in a car accident, you only have one chance to recover damages, and it is prudent to speak to a dedicated Florida car accident lawyer to determine your potential claims.

The Underlying Accident and Negotiations

It is reported that there was a three-car accident involving the plaintiff, the defendant, and another party. The defendant’s car struck the third-party’s car, which then struck the plaintiff’s car. The plaintiff and his son were both injured in the crash. Following the accident, the plaintiff and the third party asserted claims against the defendant. The parties reportedly entered into a settlement agreement, wherein the defendant’s insurer agreed to pay her policy limits, which were divided among the three injured parties.

Allegedly, the plaintiff then filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and attached evidence regarding the settlement agreement to her motion. The plaintiff opposed the motion and filed affidavits stating that no settlement occurred. The defendant then sought to depose the plaintiff’s attorney and the plaintiff on issues pertaining to settlement. The plaintiff sought and was granted a protective order precluding such discovery, and the defendant appealed. Continue reading ›

Florida Court Discusses What Law Applies in Cases Involving Out of State Accidents

Published on: February 14, 2021 | Lusk, Drasites & Tolisano, P.A.

Many people who are injured in car accidents seek to recover damages from the party responsible for their harm in a personal injury lawsuit. While it is important to file such claims within the statute of limitations, in some instances, what time constraints apply is not clear, such as in cases in which the claim is filed in a different state than where the accident occurred. Determining what statute of limitations applies in such cases was the topic of a recent Florida opinion issued in a matter in which the plaintiffs filed claims for damages caused by an accident that occurred in Georgia. If you were hurt in a collision, you could be owed compensation, and it is advisable to speak to a capable Florida personal injury attorney as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff husband was involved in a collision with the defendant while driving in Georgia. The plaintiff husband suffered significant injuries, which he treated in Florida, where he lived. He and his wife then filed a lawsuit against the defendant in a Florida federal court, asserting claims of negligence and loss of consortium. The defendant, who lived in Michigan, argued that the Georgia statute of limitations applied barring the plaintiffs’ claims and filed a motion to dismiss.

Determining Which State’s Laws Apply

After reviewing the case, the court found that the Georgia statute of limitations applied to the negligence claim but not the loss of consortium claim. The court explained that in determining which state’s laws apply, a federal court in Florida will use the “most significant relationship test.” Under this test, the court will look at which state has a greater relationship to the injury in question, based on numerous principles, including the relevant policies of the forum, the needs of the interstate systems, upholding justified expectations, and uniformity of results. Continue reading ›

Florida Court Discusses Evidence of Comparative Negligence in Car Accident Cases

Published on: January 8, 2021 | Lusk, Drasites & Tolisano, P.A.

A person injured in a car accident will often pursue claims against the driver that caused the accident. In many instances, the person named as a defendant will attempt to evade liability by arguing that the plaintiff, in some way, contributed to causing the accident. For example, if a pedestrian lacks the capacity to walk safely and is struck by a vehicle, the driver may seek to introduce evidence of the pedestrian’s incapacitation in an effort to avoid being found at fault. The evidence that is admissible to demonstrate contributory negligence was the topic of a recent Florida ruling, in a case in which the plaintiff, who was intoxicated, was struck by the defendant driver. If you were hurt in a collision, it is in your best interest to speak to a skillful Florida car accident attorney to assess your rights.

The Evidence Admitted at Trial

It is reported that the plaintiff was walking along the side of a highway when he was struck by a car driven by the defendant. Police investigating the accident determined that the plaintiff had been drinking earlier in the day after he said he consumed two alcoholic beverages. He admitted to being “buzzed” and stated he did not know where he was going and was attempting to call a friend when he was struck. The defendant saw the plaintiff prior to the collision and was not distracted or impaired due to drugs or alcohol.

Allegedly, after he saw the plaintiff, he moved into the other lane to give him more room but struck him regardless. During the trial, the defendant admitted evidence from a toxicologist indicating that the plaintiff’s blood alcohol content at the time of the accident was .18 and that the plaintiff was impaired. Following the final verdict, the plaintiff appealed, arguing the introduction of intoxication evidence was improper.

Florida Court Weighs Admissibility of Late Evidence in a Negligence Case

Published on: October 24, 2020 | Lusk, Drasites & Tolisano, P.A.

In Florida, there are rules that dictate when parties must produce evidence in support of their claims and defenses and when witnesses, including experts, must be disclosed. Such rules are designed to ensure a fair trial and to prevent one party from ambushing the other with previously unforeseen information on the eve of trial. If a party fails to comply with deadlines regarding discovery and disclosure, it may have an adverse impact, as demonstrated in a recent car accident case in Florida in which the plaintiff’s late-produced expert was prohibited from testifying. If you suffered injuries in an accident, it is important to speak to a knowledgeable Florida personal injury attorney regarding what you must prove to recover damages.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who was operating a power chair, was struck by a car when she attempted to cross a Florida highway in a construction zone. She filed a lawsuit against the driver and the construction company, setting forth negligence claims alleging, in part, that she suffered psychological trauma due to the accident. During discovery, both the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s expert psychiatrists testified that the plaintiff was not suffering from PTSD and issued reports reflecting that testimony.

It is reported that days before trial, however, the plaintiff produced a second report from her expert wherein the expert stated the plaintiff suffered from PTSD and that it was caused by the accident. The defendants filed a motion in limine, asking the court to preclude the newly produced evidence, and the motion was granted. The jury found that plaintiff did not suffer any harm in the accident and ruled in favor of the defendants, after which the plaintiff appealed, arguing the trial court erred in precluding her second expert report.

Florida Court Reverses a Directed Verdict in a Negligence Case

Published on: October 14, 2020 | Lusk, Drasites & Tolisano, P.A.

Negligence requires a plaintiff to prove multiple elements. In other words, the plaintiff must not only show that the defendant violated the applicable standard of care, but also that the defendant’s departure led to the plaintiff’s harm. As such, in most cases, negligence is an issue that must be decided by the jury. This was illustrated in a recent Florida car accident case in which an appellate court vacated the trial court’s order issuing a directed verdict in favor of the plaintiff, as the issue of causation was disputed. If you were hurt in a car accident, it is advisable to speak to a proficient Florida personal injury attorney to assess what damages you may be able to pursue.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant’s driver, who was operating a tractor-trailer, was employing a back-up maneuver to deliver goods to a business on a highway. The maneuver caused the truck to be placed into a jackknife position on the road. The delivery took place in the early morning hours, and the defendant had the lights on the vehicle illuminated. The plaintiff was traveling down the highway at the same time when he suddenly approached the truck. He was unable to stop in time to avoid a collision and ultimately suffered extensive injuries.

Allegedly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, setting forth claims of negligence. At trial, the defendant conceded that the driver negligently maneuvered the truck. He argued, however, that the plaintiff could have been at fault for the accident, and the evidence presented to the jury would ultimately determine the issue of liability. Following the close of the plaintiff’s case, the court issued a directed verdict stating that the defendant proximately caused the plaintiff’s harm. After the trial concluded, the defendant appealed.

Can Unsafe Tires Cause Car Accidents?

Published on: April 8, 2019 | Lusk, Drasites & Tolisano, P.A.

Automotive Accident Attorneys in Cape Coral, FL

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, about 19,000 Americans are injured every year in car accidents caused by unsafe tires. If you or a loved one has been seriously injured in a car accident involving unsafe tires, request a consultation with one of our car accident lawyers.

We can help you determine what your next steps should be so you can receive the compensation you deserve for car accident injuries.

Continue reading to learn how unsafe tires cause car accidents.

Did Distracted Driving Cause Your Accident?

Published on: April 8, 2019 | Lusk, Drasites & Tolisano, P.A.

Distracted Driving Attorneys in Naples, FL

In the United States, distracted drivers are responsible for causing 9 deaths and injuring 1,000 people each day.

If you or a loved one were hurt due to distracted driving, call our auto accident attorneys as soon as possible.

Our lawyers will do everything in their power to prove that the other driver was negligent when they took their attention away from the road.