Articles Posted in Car Accidents

Last month, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case of Disla v. Blanco, demonstrating how the application of the state’s comparative negligence doctrine can have a dramatic impact on a plaintiff’s recovery for injuries suffered in a car accident.

In Disla, the plaintiff, Mayuris Disla, was injured in a car accident when the defendant, Joseph Blanco, had a seizure and lost control of the vehicle while driving Disla home. In the ensuing crash, Disla suffered a broken neck which later required cervical fusion surgery. Disla sued Blanco for negligence, and following a trial, the jury found both parties to be the legal cause of damage to Disla, but apportioned 90% of the fault to Disla for failing to wear her seatbelt. The jury awarded Disla total damages of $205,325, which was reduced by the allocation of fault and PIP benefits to $10,532.50.

As this blog has discussed before, there are two doctrines under which the allocation of fault in a tort case can affect the recovery of damages. The first, referred to as “contributory negligence” has, for the most part, fallen by the wayside and is only still followed in five jurisdictions in the United States.

According to a recently released study entitled “Driving under the (Cellular) Influence” conducted by Carnegie Mellon University and the London School of Economics and Political Science, the use of a cell phone while operating a vehicle does not correlate with a higher risk of causing a car accident.

The study sought to reconcile the conclusion that talking on a cell phone while driving increased the risk of crash with the fact that, although cell phone use has increased over the past few decades, the number of car crashes per mile traveled in the United States has decreased. The study gathered data from an unnamed cell phone provider which demonstrated a more than seven percent increase in call volume after 9 p.m., due to usage plans that offered free nights.

These figures were then compared to the rate of car accidents occurring before and after 9 p.m. Based on crash data gathered on eight million accidents in nine states and all fatal crashes across the nation, the study concluded that there was no correlation between cell usage during driving and incidence of car accidents.

Early Saturday, August 3 2013, morning a car heading northbound on interstate 95 crashed over the side of the elevated highway according to NBC Miami. When fire rescue arrived at the scene they had to pull one woman from the wreckage that landed in nearby trees. The other woman tragically had already died after being thrown from the car. Apparently, the car spun out of control after slamming into the median and continued on a trajectory that flung the car over the edge of the interstate. Although the exact cause of the accident is unknown, it is currently being investigated by the Highway Patrol.

Unfortunately, horrible car accidents like this one occur all too often. If you or a loved one is involved in an accident, no matter how severe, you can count on accident attorneys Philip M. Gerson, Edward S. Schwartz and Nicholas I Gerson to help you through the legal ramifications. They are experts in personal injury cases with specialization in car accidents as well as maritime law. It is always best to operate a vehicle while completely sober and to stay focused on the road. Checking in all of your mirrors frequently will keep you aware of your surroundings should another car with a dangerous driver approach your driving path. Being aware of other drivers’ around you is imperative to driving defensively and may save your life.

Always have an escape route planned. This way if a dangerous driver is close to hitting your car, you can quickly and easily move out of harm’s way. Often times, driving in the center lane is a good solution for this as it allows for lateral movement in either direction.

As this blog has previously discussed on several occasions, Florida is one of twelve states that has adopted a “no fault” insurance scheme. Florida’s system requires motorists involved in auto accidents to submit claims for compensation to their own insurance company, regardless of which party is at fault for the accident.

Florida has further mandated that motorists must carry a minimum of $10,000 of personal injury protection (“PIP”) insurance which covers medical treatment and other economic damages that might arise from a motor vehicle accident up to 80% of medical bills, 60% of lost wages, and a $5,000 death benefit.

Florida’s PIP system has been the subject of much scrutiny over the last year as lawmakers continue to tinker with its provisions through new legislation. The PIP system is intended to provide benefits for to those injured in automobile accidents in an expedited manner. Recently, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision in Nunez v. Geico holding that the placement of certain obstacles to obtaining recovery by insurers frustrates the purpose of the PIP system and are therefore unlawful.

In Nunez, Merly Nunez was injured in a car accident in September 2008 and sought PIP benefits from her insurance company, Geico. Geico denied Nunez coverage, claiming that she had to submit to an examination under oath, as required by her policy, prior to seeking treatment. Nunez sued Geico in a class action, arguing that Geico’s examination requirement violated Florida’s PIP statute.

After the federal district court dismissed the lawsuit, Nunez appealed to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which certified the issue for resolution by the Florida Supreme Court. Before the Florida Supreme Court could decide the case, Governor Rick Scott signed into law amendments to the PIP statute that required any individual seeking benefits to comply with the terms of his or her insurance policy, including an examination under oath requirement. However, according to the Supreme Court, because Nunez’s policy with Geico was issued in 2008 and the accident was in 2008, the amendments to the PIP statute were inapplicable to Nunez’s case.
In ruling that Geico’s policy violated the provisions of the PIP statute, the Court recognized that the statute’s stated purpose is to provide for “swift and virtually automatic payment” to those eligible for PIP benefits and Geico’s examination requirement clearly frustrated that purpose by preventing Nunez from recovering in a “swift and virtually automatic” way.

If you or someone you know has been injured in a car accident you may need legal representation to protect your right to compensation. It is imperative that it your claim be evaluated by an experienced personal injury attorney as soon as possible after the accident to preserve your right to compensation.

Continue reading

According to a recently released study conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, contrary to what many individuals might believe, motorists are incapable of safely performing both the various tasks necessary to safely operate a vehicle while engaging in another activity such as talking on the phone or texting.

The study, entitled “Measuring Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile,” sought to establish a method by which researchers could measure and understand “cognitive distraction” in motor vehicles by performing various experiments designed to assess the effect distractions had on the ability of participants to effectively operate a motor vehicle.
The study concluded that, as drivers were exposed to increased mental workload and distractions, their reaction time slowed significantly and their brain function became compromised. The detrimental effects of increased distractions resulted in driver’s scanning the road less and missing visual cues.
The study’s findings seem to debunk many motorists’ long-held belief that the use of hands-free technology to talk or text eliminates much of the danger associated with distracted driving. The study’s results indicate that the mental distractions caused by talking or texting are present even when motorist are able to keep their hands on the wheel and eyes on the road.
According to Gail Weinholzer, a AAA representative, a survey conducted by AAA found that “71% of all drivers believed that hands-free is risk-free and 50% of all drivers believed infotainment systems are not distracting. Both of those statistics could not be further from the truth.”
As this blog has discussed before, distracted driving is a serious problem plaguing Florida’s roadways. Of the more than 170,000 crash reports filed in Florida during the first ten months in 2011, over 100 involved motorists that were texting at the time of the accident.
Further, according report published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2009, 5,474 people were killed on U.S. roadways and another 448,000 were injured in motor vehicle accidents that reportedly involved distracted drivers. In distracted driving crashes that resulted in a death, 995 involved a cell phone as the distraction, and, of those accidents resulting in injury, more than 24,000 involved a cell phone.

The State of Florida has recently taken steps to curb the negative consequences of distracted driving, as Governor Rick Scott recently signed a bill banning motorists from texting-while-driving. The ban makes Florida the forty-first state to enact such prohibitions on the use of cell phones while driving. Although the ban on texting-while-driving may result in a decrease in distracted driving, the AAA study demonstrates that it will continue to be problem as long as motorists persist in using technological devices while operating their vehicles.

Continue reading

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) adopted new regulations revising the hours-of-service (“HOS”) safety requirements for commercial truck drivers, which become effective July 1, 2013. HOS regulations limit the number of hours a truck driver may operative his or her vehicle during any given period of time.

The new rule retains some of the old regulation’s provisions, such as an 11-hour daily driving limit, but also changes and adds others. Specifically, new regulation reduces the maximum number of hours a truck driver can work in a given week by twelve, from 82 down to 70.

The rule also requires drivers that have just worked eight hours to take a break of at least 30 minutes before driving again. Finally, the rule requires drivers that max out their weekly hours to rest at least two nights a week from 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., which, according to the FMCSA, is when the driver’s “24-hour body clock demands sleep the most.” The rest requirement is part of the regulation’s “34-hour restart” provision that permits drivers to restart the clock on the work week by having at least 34 consecutive hours off-duty.

This past March, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals tackled an important issue in the case of Smith v. Llamas, addressing the inquiry as to whether a Florida car accident victim’s injuries are temporary or permanent and if this question should be answered by a jury. The Court ultimately held that the permanency of injuries is a question of fact, and, as such, is the sole province of the jury.

In Smith, Fernando Llamas was injured in car accident when his vehicle collided with that of Shana Smith. Llamas sued Smith for negligence, claiming that that he had suffered significant injuries to his neck and knee in the accident. Smith maintained that she was only partially responsible for the collision and, pursuant to Florida’s comparative negligence doctrine, her liability must be reduced by the proportion of Llamas’ liability.

At trial, Llamas presented expert testimony by a neurosurgeon stating that Llamas’ neck injury was permanent due to the fact that surgery could not completely eliminate the injury. In rebuttal, Smith’s expert, an orthopedic surgeon, testified that Llamas’ neck injury was not permanent and was not caused by the accident.

Earlier this year, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals addressed the question as to liability of a co-owner of a vehicle for injuries caused by the negligent driving of the car’s other owner. In Ortiz v. Regalado, Andy Ortiz (“Andy”) was driving a car which he co-owned with his father when he collided with the vehicle of Lourdes Falcon, killing Ms. Falcon’s daughter who was a passenger.

Ms. Falcon filed a lawsuit, claiming that Andy was negligent in causing the accident and that his father was vicariously liable for Andy’s negligence as joint owner of the vehicle. As this blog has discussed before, vicarious liability, or respondeat superior, is a legal theory under which the superior, in this case Andy’s father, is held liable for the acts of his or her subordinate, in this case Andy.

After a trial, a jury found that Andy and Ms. Falcon were each 50% at fault for the accident and awarded Ms. Falcon a judgment for approximately $1.4 million in damages. Under Florida’s comparative negligence law, each party to an accident is held proportionately liable for damages resulting from his or her negligence. Accordingly, the court ordered Andy and his father jointly liable to pay half of the $1.4 million judgment.

Texting while driving is a rampant problem across the US, which often times leads to catastrophic car accidents. The state of Florida is one of the only remaining states who had not yet passed a law banning texting while driving, until now. The senate has approved and passed Bill 52 making texting a secondary violation for drivers, who are cited for a primary driving infraction. If it is discovered, that a driver is typing on any device whatsoever, he or she will receive an additional citation for this, now illegal activity.

Statistics indicate that thousands of teens and adults are killed each year due to texting and driving. Miami auto accident attorneys, as well as law enforcement deal with these critical cases on a regular basis. The dangers of distracted driving have been proven over and over again throughout the world. According to Distraction.Gov, drivers who use a hand held device are 4 times more likely to get into life threatening car accidents. Sending a text or an email can take a driver’s eyes of the road for an average of 4.6 seconds, resulting in serious car accidents that cause injury to drivers, passengers and pedestrians, alike.

Personal injury attorneys Nicholas and Philip Gerson have seen firsthand what can happen when a careless driver is holding the wheel and a hand held device at the same time. They have handled numerous cases in which a driver who sent a quick text or email caused serious harm to their clients. Wrongful death cases or cases of catastrophic injuries are the result of driver negligence.

If drivers were not otherwise distracted, they would have been paying closer attention to the road. Texting or sending emails while driving takes the driver out of the moment and away from noticing the street signs, lights, or innocent pedestrians. Frequently, teen agers who are new drivers are easily distracted by texting while driving. Due to their young age and inexperience, children’s slower reflexes become a handicap for them while navigating the road. 11 teenage drivers die every day in the US due to texting and driving.

Continue reading

Typically, when a person is injured in a car accident, the insurance company of the at-fault party will step in and attempt to settle the dispute on behalf of its insured. Sometimes, however, the insurance company is unable or unwilling to settle the claim, forcing the injured party to sue. The injured party may later receive a judgment against the insured party that exceeds the amount of the insured’s coverage, leaving him or her on the hook to the injured person for the full amount of the award less what was covered by under the insurance policy.

Under Florida law, bad faith claims allow the insured to sue his or her insurance company to recover the difference between the limit of coverage and the amount of the judgment if the insurance company acted in “bad faith” in attempting to settle the injured party’s claims. Last month, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, issued an opinion in the case of Markel American Insurance Company v. Flugga discussing the elements of a bad faith claim and the elements necessary to establish such a cause of action.

In Flugga, Mark Flugga was found to be at fault for a 2010 motor vehicle accident in which he, his passenger, and two individuals in another vehicle were injured. Flugga’s insurance company, Markel American Insurance Company, was notified of the accident four days after it occurred.

Contact Information