Personal Injury

August 4, 2013

Workers Injured In Explosions At Florida Propane Plant

Late Monday night, the Blue Rhino propane gas-filling plant in Tavares, Florida, was rocked by a series of explosions that seriously injured several of the facility’s workers. According to the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, there were no fatalities as a result of the blasts, however, eight of the estimated twenty four to twenty six man crew working an overnight shift at the plant were taken to local hospitals with severe injuries. Of the injured, at least three have been listed in critical condition.

The Blue Rhino plant, located northwest of Orlando, refills the 20-pound propane tanks used in gas grills and had over 53,000 on site at the time of the explosions. There were also three bulk storage tanks holding approximately 30,000 pounds of liquefied propane that were damaged by the blasts but did not explode. The plant passed inspections by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in March and July with no safety violations.

Tavares Fire Chief commented on the cause of the explosions, stating “We don’t think there was any act of sabotage or anything like that. It was probably a human or equipment error.” While there has yet to be any substantial investigation as to the cause of this accident, the initial reports indicate that there may have been some negligence on the part of the company or employees in the operation of the plant.

The injuries of those employees should be covered by workers compensation insurance. However, in the event insurance coverage doesn’t exist, or is insufficient to compensate the victims of this incident for their injury, the parent company of Blue Rhino, Ferrellgas, may be held liable if the plant was operated or managed in a negligent manner. Ferrellgas spokesman Scott Brockelmeyer admitted that Ferrellgas paid a $2,295.00 fine in November of 2011 after an Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspection discovered the absence of a component at the end of an air hose, but claimed that the problem was immediately corrected.

There are a number of negligent acts that could have caused this unfortunate accident. Poor design or improper installation of equipment and improper inspection or maintenance of the facility are just a few of the things that could have gone wrong. Ferrellgas owed their employees a duty to discover and take action to prevent dangers that were foreseeable and any failure to do so may result in civil liability.

If you or someone you know has been injured as the result of the dangerous condition caused by the negligent acts of another, it is important that you discuss your situation with a knowledgeable attorney as soon as possible to determine the merit and value of your claim, as well as to preserve any favorable evidence.

July 27, 2013

Florida Supreme Court Addresses Prerequisites To Coverage Under Personal Injury Protection Insurance System

by Gerson & Schwartz, P.A.

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.

July 10, 2013

First Lawsuit Regarding Miami, Florida Restaurant Deck Collapse Raises Premises Liability Claims

by Gerson & Schwartz, P.A.

Last month, thirty-three people were injured when the deck of North Bay Village waterfront restaurant Shuckers Bar & Grill collapsed while patrons watched Game 4 of the NBA Finals. According to Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Chief Dave Downey, there were more than on hundred people on the deck when it came down, sending dozens into Biscayne Bay. Of the injured individuals, twenty four were transported to local hospitals and two of them were in serious condition.

In late June, the first of what is likely to be several lawsuits against Shuckers was filed by a couple that claims they suffered bodily injury, mental anguish and disfigurement in the accident. According to the complaint filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, Shuckers had “a duty to properly maintain its property and to warn of dangerous conditions which it had actual constructive knowledge of” and to take action to remedy those hazardous conditions.

A North Bay Village Building Official indicated that a visual inspection of the deck revealed that the concrete surrounding the steel pilings that supported the deck had degraded. Although the Building Official had approved an inspection of Shuckers in January, the engineer who inspected the building admitted he did not inspect the deck.

July 1, 2013

AAA Study Concludes That Motorists Are Unable To Safely Multitask While Driving

by Gerson & Schwartz, P.A.

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.

June 20, 2013

Federal Officials Adopt Provisions Limiting Truckers’ Maximum “Hours Of Service” And Imposing New Penalties For Violations

by Gerson & Schwartz, P.A.

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.

June 14, 2013

Shuckers Dock Collapses into Water Injuring Customers

by Gerson & Schwartz, P.A.

Local long time hang out, sports bar and restaurant, Shuckers, located on the 79th street Causeway in Miami Beach, became a scene of chaos and serious injuries. Last night, the entire dock where patrons were eating , drinking, and watching the NBA Miami Heat Play off game, collapsed, suddenly. Innocent victims, including children went plunging into Biscayne bay of North Bay Village, along with their tables, chairs , foods and beverages. In some cases, patrons were trapped in between the dock planks or received injuries from flying tables and chairs.

This scene quickly turned into a rescue mission. As, bar tenders, wait staff, and fellow customers jumped into the water to assist victims. Over 50 fire rescue vehicles were dispatched and the entire 79th street Causeway was closed down for an extended period of time. The deck collapsed just as the Miami Heat scored , causing customers to jump out of their seats with excitement. Reports indicate that 24 people were injured, including a mother and her baby.

Miami personal injury attorneys can bring legal action against establishments such as Shuckers in premises liability accidents such as in this case as it appears that the dock and supporting structures were either negligently constructed or negligently maintained. According to published reports, there is a debate as to whether or not Shuckers had its dock inspected, despite representing that a routine inspection took place just 6 months ago.
Incidents like this should never occur, clearly, the dock at Shuckers was unsafe and customers’ lives were put at serious risk. The individuals who were injured can file law suits on their own behalf for pain, and suffering due to serious injuries they have endured.

Property maintenance and upkeep of structures such as the dock used by Shucker’s customers for dining is a reasonable legal requirement. A qualified injury that specializes in premises liability accidents can assist injured parties collect money damages for clients who have been the victims of such incidents.Gerson & Schwartz,PA, has handled collapsing dock cases in the past. Several years ago, Gerson & Schwartz, PA received a 2 million dollar verdict in a similar case tried in Atlanta, Georgia.

If you or someone you know were injured in a premises liability accident, due to the negligence of contact the personal injury law offices of Gerson & Schwartz, PA today. Contact (877) 475-2905 today or info@gslawusa.com for a free consultation today.

May 23, 2013

Florida Court of Appeals Declares That Permanency Of Car Accident Injuries Is A Decision For The Jury

by Gerson & Schwartz, P.A.

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.

May 21, 2013

What Consumers Need To Know About Class Actions Lawsuits As They Relate To Product Liability Claims

by Gerson & Schwartz, P.A.

Previously, this blog discussed the elements of product liability claims as they relate to recalls by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“USPSC”) of various defective consumer products. Many times the circumstances associated with product liability claims spur attorneys to use a unique legal device to obtain recovery when multiple individuals have been injured.

When a sufficiently large number of people are injured by a product that was defectively manufactured or designed, the group’s legal claims may be pursued by means of a “class action” lawsuit.

A class action lawsuit is a type of legal claim that groups multiple individuals together so they can litigate their claims as one. In order to commence such an action, however, the class must first be certified by the court in which the lawsuit is filed. To be certified by the Court a class must possess four qualities:

May 2, 2013

No Texting While Driving Passes in Florida Senate

by Gerson & Schwartz, P.A.

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.

April 22, 2013

What Constitutes Bad Faith On The Part Of An Insurance Company Under Florida Law?

by Gerson & Schwartz, P.A.

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.