Articles Tagged with personal injury

Published on:

In the last decade, the Pew Research Center has closely analyzed the many ways Americans use social media to interact with others and seek information. Researchers discovered that in 2016, almost 8 out of 10 Americans who are online (which is most) use Facebook, 24 percent use Twitter and a third use Pinterest, Instagram and LinkedIn. For instance, most Americans are now getting their news via social media. They are also using it at work, whether in the course of their job, to seek employment or just to take a mental break from the stress of their day. personal injury lawyer

While these platforms provide information, entertainment and interactivity, they can also have a profound impact on your personal injury case. This is increasingly true as more Americans are online. We use these sites to document our everyday experiences, so it’s natural for attorneys – on both sides – to closely examine the information available to ascertain whether it can be a benefit or a hindrance to their case. As The American Bar Association pointed out, social media posts, pictures and messages can be compelled into evidence, assuming the requesting attorney can make an argument that the information is:

  • Authentic;
  • Relevant;
  • More probative than prejudicial;
  • There is no hearsay problem.

Continue reading →

Published on:

In Florida, property owners are generally liable for dangerous conditions that are not obvious and cause harm to those who are lawfully present. There are varying degrees of a property owner’s responsibility in this area of law – known as premises liability – depending on the status of the individual who was hurt. For example, someone who is invited onto the property for the financial benefit of the property owner is owed a higher duty of care than someone who is trespassing. child injury lawyer

In most cases, trespassers are not owed any duty of care, except that property owners can’t intentionally harm them or set traps. When it comes to children, though, the standards are different. Children are generally owed a greater duty of care than adults in the same situation, and this is true also when children are trespassing. The doctrine of attractive nuisance, for example, holds that if property owners maintain dangerous conditions likely to attract young children to the site, the property owner must be sensitive to that potential danger (which a child may not appreciate) by posting a warning or taking some other affirmative steps to protect children from that danger.

Recently in Minnesota, the state supreme court there considered property owner liability in the case where a 4-year-old boy nearly drowned in the Mississippi River and suffered severe and permanent brain damage.  Continue reading →

Published on:

In a ruling that will have a major impact on all Florida personal injury lawsuits, the Florida Supreme Court has rejected a more stringent standard of evidence known as the Daubert Standard, in favor of the less restrictive Frye Standard that it followed for years.

Florida legislators in 2013 voted to alter the Florida Evidence Code to a switch from Frye to Daubert, and Gov. Rick Scott signed that measure into law, with favor from the defense bar and big business clients. However, the courts never formally followed suit, and it seems with this ruling, they don’t intend to do so. The court cited constitutional concerns.

We recognize legal discussions on evidence standards can sound like dry jargon. But here’s tinjury lawyerhe reality: It’s likely to have a direct impact on your Fort Myers injury lawsuit. The reason is that the Daubert requires a higher standard of proof just to get a foot in the door. That can mean your case could be killed before it ever even gets started, which plaintiff attorneys like us view as an issue of access to the courts. Specifically, Daubert involves the admissibility of expert witness testimony. That’s not to say “Frye” is a free-for-all, by any means. However, it does give you a better chance of getting your valid case in front of a judge and reaching a favorable solution.  Continue reading →

Published on:

In personal injury cases, it’s essential to prove defendant owed a duty to plaintiff, that duty was breached and the breach caused the injury. moonlight

What many plaintiffs don’t realize is that they too owe a duty of care – to themselves. They have to take reasonable measures to protect themselves from known or knowable hazards, or else risk forfeiting the right to recover damages for it.

Thus, a key defense in these cases is the “assumption of risk.” The assumption of risk doctrine holds plaintiff knew of a dangerous condition and voluntarily exposed himself or herself to it.

This was the defense used in Griffin v. Haunted Hotel, Inc., before the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One. Continue reading →