car accident attorney

Proving Nature and Extent of Injury in Florida Car Accidents

January 18, 2018 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Part of securing damages for your car accident injuries means not only proving the defendant motorist was at-fault in the crash, but also showing that the causal nature and extent of your injuries. Some Florida car accident trials center solely around these facts, with defendants arguing you weren’t as seriously injured as you allege or that the injuries you attribute to the crash were caused by something else.

Proving negligence means showing:

Defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care (in these cases, that driver had a responsibility to drive with reasonable care);
Defendant breached that duty;
Breach caused plaintiff’s injuries.

A recent case out of Nebraska shows how critical that causal element is in securing financial compensation. Continue reading ›

Lawmakers Ax Plan Allowing Self-Driving Carmakers to Skirt Liability for Crashes for Failed Maintenance

January 9, 2018 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Self-driving cars, while not yet fully autonomous, provide motorists with the opportunity to cede some of the control behind the wheel. There is much evidence that this is a whole lot safer, as driver error is the primary cause of auto accidents in Florida. However, it has also meant the question of liability has become a vexing one. If a crash happens, who was in control – the driver or the auto manufacturer?

Recently in California, the state Department of Motor Vehicles announced it would not adopt a rule (recommended by General Motors) that would allow manufacturers of automobiles to evade liability for car accidents wherein the self-driving vehicle hasn’t been maintained to the letter of the manufacturer’s specifications. Advocacy group Consumer Watchdog calls the decision a “major victory for consumers,” according to the Associated Press. The rules, as proposed by the automaking industry, would have effectively absolved producers of these vehicles of product liability for things like the owner’s failure to properly clean the vehicle sensors or having a tire that was slightly under-inflated or not precisely meeting oil change recommendations.

Although it is true that vehicle owners have a responsibility to adequately maintain their vehicles (or face potential liability when failure to do so results in an injurious crash), these kinds of stringent maintenance requirements don’t exist for the standard human-driven vehicle. Continue reading ›

Wrong-Way Crash Victim Awarded $4.7M in Damages in South Florida Trial

January 2, 2018 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Although the majority of car accident lawsuits in Florida are either settled or dismissed prior to trial, it’s important to work with an attorney you know will be prepared for the possibility of a trial. In the event that settlement negotiations break down and defendants are unwilling to extend a fair agreement to our clients, our Fort Myers trial lawyers are willing to do exactly that, and have a long history of success in such matters. It’s important that when you’re looking for a car accident attorney in Lee County that you ask about their trial experience, even if it seems unlikely the case will proceed to that point. This is especially important in cases involving serious injury or death.

Recently in Miami, a wrong-way crash victim was awarded $4.7 million by jurors in a car accident lawsuit that advanced to trial.

The Daily Business Review reports the head-on collision occurred in 2012 on Interstate 95. Although fault in a case like this may seem relatively easy to prove, this case was made even more challenging by the fact plaintiff was adamant about not testifying in front of the jury. In fact, she didn’t even want to enter the courtroom during the proceedings, citing the immense trauma she suffered after the crash. Just 20-years-old at the time of the crash, plaintiff had been a passenger in her friend’s vehicle when they were struck in Broward County around 3 a.m. by the wrong-way car. Continue reading ›

Florida Woman Injured When Car Crashes Into Her House

December 26, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

A Florida woman was seriously injured when a car came crashing into her Orange County home one recent Tuesday morning as she sat at her kitchen table. The 61-year-old driver reportedly failed to negotiate a curve as she approached the house. The homeowner was pinned until first responders arrived. She was transported to a hospital for treatment, and is expected to survive, The Orlando Sentinel reported.

The driver, who suffered minor injuries, was ticketed for careless driving and told authorities she has no memory of what happened.

Although it can be tempting to write off such an incident as bizarre and isolated, the reality is many homes, business and even government buildings are vulnerable to this kind of assault. Continue reading ›

Survey: Almost Half Distracted Drivers Say, “Boss Made Me Do It”

December 21, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Employers who encourage their workers to stay connected at all times should be mindful that if those times include while the employee is operating a vehicle, the employer could be deemed liable for the resulting injuries. This could come about in one of two ways:

Vicarious liability. Plaintiffs need not show the company was negligent, only that the driver who was negligent was acting in the course and scope of an employment at the time of the crash. An employee who is distracted by a work-related call could be found to have been acting in the course and scope of employment, even if he or she wasn’t technically on-the-clock.
Direct negligence. Companies that compel or expect workers to be available at all times – even knowing some of those times will be while the worker is driving – could be found directly negligent for a distracted-driving crash involving a worker. This is why an increasing number of companies are attempting to shield themselves from liability with anti- distracted driving policies.

Despite knowing that distraction is one of the top causes of roadway accidents, many employers still fail to take this important initiative.

A recent poll conducted on behalf of Travelers insurance revealed that work-related pressures play a significant role in distracted driving. Continue reading ›

When Property Owners Can be Liable for Crashes

November 25, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

When examining liability for a South Florida car accident, our injury lawyers in Cape Coral will of course first examine the negligence of the other. We’ll examine the potential vicarious liability claims of the vehicle owner, the driver’s employer and the motor carrier (if applicable). We may even look closely at whether there was a vehicle defect that would render the auto manufacturer or repair shop responsible to cover damages. In some cases, the local county or municipality could be liable too if there is evidence the entity failed in its duty to maintain public roads.

It’s not often in these cases that we will lodge a premises liability claim – but it’s not something that should be discounted. Premises liability involves the responsibility of property owners to maintain their site in a reasonably safe condition. Usually, these types of claims would include things like slip-and-fall accidents or trip-and-falls or drownings. However, it may arise in a car accident claim if there is evidence some condition on the property that posed a danger to drivers, bicyclists or pedestrians. There are a number of successful Florida premises liability claims that have stemmed from car accident injuries.

The California Supreme Court recently considered one such case involving a pedestrian accident that resulted in the injury of a church member who was struck crossing the street from the church overflow parking lot to the main parking lot on his way to attend services. The court ruled that a landowner does not owe a duty of care to assist invitees to cross a public street when the landowner maintain a parking lot requiring invitees to cross the street to access the landowner’s main site – as long as the typical dangers of a public street aren’t in some way magnified or hidden by some condition of the landowner’s property or by some action taken by the landowner. Continue reading ›

Potential Product Liability Claims as Vehicle Defect Reported in Chrysler Vans

November 20, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

While the majority of auto accident injuries are the result of negligence by one or more motorist involved, crash victims shouldn’t overlook the possibility that a vehicle defect may have been a contributing factor, if not the sole cause.

The auto industry hasn’t garnered a great deal of public trust in recent years, as numerous class action lawsuits have revealed a long-standing pattern within the industry to conceal vehicle defects from unsuspecting members of the public. Last year, as noted by Automotive News, auto makers recalled a record 53.2 million vehicles for defects ranging from seat belt failures to malfunctioning airbags to non-working breaks. These are serious deficits that, even if they don’t cause a crash, may result in one suffering injuries that far worse than they otherwise would have been.

Now, we receive news of the latest reported problem, which involves an alleged defect wherein Chrysler Pacifica vans are shutting off suddenly in mid-travel. The New York Times reports one man in San Francisco was driving at 70 mph down the highway in his brand new van when the vehicle shut off without warning. As she explained, “It just died.” In the middle of a congested highway, the van slowed to a crawl with no power steering or electrical power. The driver edged his way over as far to the right as he could, trying desperately to get to the shoulder with what little juice was left as vehicles whizzed by. He was barely missed by a semi-truck that laid on the horn and was forced to swerve. Continue reading ›

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 ›