On May 16, 2008, plaintiff Alcira Marcella Britt was hit by drunk driver Shanna Clayton who was employed as an exotic dancer at Club Lexx in Miami, Florida. Ms. Britt was obeying the law and driving safely when Clayton’s car crashed into hers, leaving her seriously injured. Britt’s injuries caused her disfigurement and unable to live as she had before. Her injuries were severe that and she has the ability to earn money, as well.

All of Britt’s pain and suffering were due not only to Clayton’s negligence, but also due to the negligence of the owners of Club Lexx. Actually, Club Lexx encouraged Clayton to drink with customers while working and then left her to drive home intoxicated. The defendant, Club Lexx, owed a duty to the plaintiff, Alcira Marcella Britt, as well as to the general public.  The club owners failed to supervise their exotic dancers as far as how much alcohol they were consuming while on the job.  Furthermore, knowing that their employees, such as Clayton would have to drive home at the end of their shift, this was totally irresponsible.

Club owners have a responsibility to put policies and procedures in place which assist intoxicated individuals to leave their premises at closing time, without having to operate motor vehicles on public roadways. Clubs should never allow employees to leave their premises, if they are intoxicated to the point where their normal faculties are impaired. Obviously, if they do so then they are endangering the public.

Continue reading

Liberty City nightclub, The Spot, was the scene of a massive shooting on Sunday, September 28th early in the morning. The nightclub which is located at NW 7thave and 64th street in Miami, was hosting a party when gunfire broke out randomly throughout the club. According to sources, 15 people were shot, including many under the age of 21.  It was initially reported that the club obtained a liquor license this past April and was legally permitted to serve alcohol until 3 am.  Yet, its doors appear to have been open to minors of nearly all ages. In fact, a young girl only 12 years of age was in the nightclub during this shooting. One of those critically wounded was a 15 year old boy.

As the criminal investigation continues, more information about the potential negligent and illegal operations of this business are trickling in. Our Miami Crime Victim Lawyers are keeping a close eye on the criminal investigation and representing one of the innocent shooting victims. Earlier today, news reports were that the club manager was arrested. It was also reported that the club was licensed to operate as a business but not a “nightclub”.  Other news reports state that the “Spot” may only have been licensed to sell beer and wine only.

Under Florida common law negligence principals, property owners and operators have a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition.  The latest news reports of numerous violations may be proof of not just ordinary but “gross negligence” under Florida law.  This could open the door to potential punitive damages under Florida Statutes 768. 72.

According to sources, there may have been 2 shooters involved. However, no suspects have been arrested. The only lead the police have is that the getaway vehicle may have been a white car.

Continue reading

When a personal injury case goes to trial, many attorneys are prepared for the trial itself. They may line up witnesses, prepare evidence, and have a good working knowledge of trial rules. But many attorneys don’t realize how important it is to not only understand the rules of evidence at trial, but to also understand the rules of appeals.

Preserving Matters for Appeal

Contrary to popular belief, an appellate court cannot review just anything that may go wrong or be improper at trial. An appellate court can only consider arguments that are made at trial. This is often called “preserving” an issue for appellate review. And it means that a trial lawyer must understand what has to be done at trial to preserve problems for appellate review.

Normally in a jury trial involving personal injuries, a jury is free to award as damages whatever amount they see just and fit, based upon the evidence presented. Traditionally there has been no cap or maximum on an amount that can be awarded, again, so long as the award is supported by the evidence presented.

However, with the push of doctor and insurance lobbyists, a few years ago, Florida passed a cap on certain damages that could be recovered by victims and their families in a medical malpractice claim.

About the Cap

Florida’s laws banning texting and driving are relatively new, and have been scorned for not being tough enough. That may be true as far as criminal penalties, but when it comes to asserting a claim for injuries in civil court, anything that distracts drivers can lead to significant liability when there’s an accident, and that’s been the law for a very long time.

The Verdict for Texting While Driving

The right to recover damages in civil court for text-related car accidents was reinforced recently when a Florida woman injured in an accident was awarded $4.3 million for permanent disabilities suffered at the hands of a driver who was texting while driving.

When a personal injury case gets submitted to a jury, the jury doesn’t just automatically know what questions it must decide on, nor does it know what kind of law applies. It’s up to the parties, at the conclusion of a trial to instruct a jury to give them guidance on how to rule. That’s normally done by submitting jury instructions.

Both parties must agree to the instructions, and when they can’t it’s often a judge that will make the final decisions.

Those instructions are vitally important. As you can imagine, subtle wording can persuade a jury, and misstating the law, or what the parties have to prove to win, can be the difference between winning and losing. And when jury instructions are incorrect or inaccurate, it can create huge problems, such was the case in a recent appeal to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals.

There are some legal fictions that seem to exist no matter how true or untrue they are. One such fiction is the so-called “one free bite rule.” This is the belief that a dog can bite someone the first time without the owner being liable, but the second time there’s liability. This is actually not true in Florida, though.

Dog Bite Laws

The law is clear that if a dog bites you, the owner is responsible for your injuries, regardless of whether Fido has ever bitten someone in the past, and regardless of the dog’s propensities for being a sweetheart or a killer in the past. There are some exceptions to this law:

In a bold decision, Miami Dade’s Judge Cueto struck down Florida’s Workers’ Compensation statute as unconstitutional. The ruling is considered a victory for injured workers.

The History of Workers’ Compensation

Before workers’ compensation, employees injured on the job sued their employers in the same manner other victims sued over their injuries. Legislatures eventually realized this was not fair for many workers, as personal injury suits frequently took a long time to settle. Worse, some on-the-job injuries did not result from negligence, but merely from working in an inherently dangerous job. Many injured workers had little or no monetary relief for their injuries.

Victims of injuries very often suffer not only physical injuries, but emotional ones as well. Anxiety, fear, post traumatic stress disorder, and any number of mental ailments are natural consequences of injury, and damages for these injuries can be recovered from a liable party in a personal injury suit. But what if you have only mental or emotional injuries, without physical injury? In these cases, the law makes it much tougher to recover damages.

Situations Where Victims Might Have Only Emotional/Mental Damages

In many cases, someone may suffer no physical injury or impact at all, but still have mental or emotional injury. Emotional damage can stem from an event that happened to you, or from witnessing something happen to a loved one. Some common examples of situations where there may only be emotional damage would be:

If you are injured by an agency of the state or city government, or any public entity, you are entitled to recover damages for your injuries. Governments, just like private companies, can be sued for negligence. However, government entities are often protected by what is known as “sovereign immunity,” a concept that can make suing and recovering, much more difficult for injured Florida victims.

What is Sovereign Immunity?

Sovereign Immunity has its roots from the days when we were an English colony. It means that you can’t sue the King—in modern days of course, “the King” being the government (sometimes called “the sovereign”). In many countries, citizens can’t sue their governments at all. But in Florida as well as many other states, the state has consented by statute to allow itself to be sued for certain things, and only up to a certain amount.

Contact Information