Boca Raton Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Pursuing a Florida Wrongful Death Claim Following a Fatal Car Accident

July 6, 2020 | by The Grife Law Firm, P.A.

After the death of a loved one, especially after an unexpected Florida car accident, there is a lot to deal with. A family must manage their grief, make funeral arrangements, as well as deal with their loved one’s medical bills. Because of this, the thought of filing a lawsuit is often the last thing on a family’s mind. However, a wrongful death claim may ease a grieving family’s financial burden and reduce many of the unavoidable stresses associated with a tragic loss.

Woman Killed on Florida Turnpike

Recently, a woman was killed, and several more were injured after a three-car crash on the Florida Turnpike. According to a local news report covering the accident, a van did not slow for traffic and hit the rear end of a car. After the vehicle was struck, it collided with a third vehicle. Unfortunately, an 84-year-old woman was killed while five others, including two young girls, suffered severe injuries.

Although the families of Florida car accident victims cannot have their loved ones back, Florida state law allows them to bring a claim against all responsible parties. The Florida Wrongful Death Act, contained in Florida Statutes section 768.16, enables the family of an accident victim to file civil charges against the responsible parties. To prove liability, the family must prove the death was caused by that person’s wrongful act, negligence, or breach of contract. Thus, a wrongful death lawsuit can only be brought if the deceased could have filed a lawsuit for the injuries he sustained, had he survived.

Continue Reading →

Florida’s New Ban on Texting and Driving – Here’s What You Need to Know

May 29, 2019 | by Michael K. Grife, Esq.

Texting and driving – an epidemic responsible for 1 in 4 car accidents – will officially be classified as a primary traffic offense in Florida starting on July 1, 2019. Prior to the passage of this new law, texting and driving was a secondary offense, meaning you could not be pulled over for it. Now, law enforcement has the power to stop and ticket solely for a texting and driving violation. This new law bans as a primary offense all forms of typing on a wireless device while driving, which includes texting, e-mailing and instant messaging. Using your cell phone to read text messages and e-mails while driving is also prohibited.

Officially codified as an amendment to Florida Statute § 316.305, the new law reads that, “A person may not operate a motor vehicle while manually typing or entering multiple letters, numbers, symbols, or other characters into a wireless communications device or while sending or reading data on such a device…” Florida now joins 44 other states in making texting and driving a primary offense. The law passed through Congress by an overwhelming majority – 108-7 in the House of Representatives and 33-5 in the Senate – before being signed into law by Governor DeSantis.

Continue Reading →

The Intersection of Fifth Amendment Rights and Social Media Posts – Wright v. Morsaw

March 25, 2019 | by The Grife Law Firm, P.A.

shutterstock_604492649-1-300x200 With the dawn of the social media age came a burgeoning new field of law. Social media discovery has spawned a rash of appellate decisions covering everything from the discoverability of Facebook posts to the legal significance of emojis. But what happens when a Facebook post could be evidence of a crime? Does that post get Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination?

The above question was posed to Florida’s Fourth District of Appeal in Wright v. Morsaw, a wrongful death civil case. In Wright, it was alleged that the Defendant was intoxicated when he left a Delray Beach bar. The Defendant was accused of a hit-and-run crash that killed a pedestrian. After the fatal crash, the Defendant allegedly fled to a friend’s home where he posted about the incident on social media.

Continue Reading →

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT – CAUSATION IS FOR JURY TO DECIDE IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

December 24, 2018 | by Michael K. Grife, Esq.

In a brand-new opinion, Ruiz v. Tenet Hialeah Healthsystem, Inc., et al., the Supreme Court of Florida reinforced that the concept of causation in medical malpractice is broad and should be left to a jury. The fact pattern in Ruiz involved a patient who was misdiagnosed with a tumor instead of multiple myeloma. Without ordering a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis, the treating neurosurgeon recommended a surgery to remove the “tumor”. During the surgery, the patient, Ms. Espinosa, went into cardiac arrest due to undiagnosed cardiac risk factors and passed away.

Ms. Espinosa’s estate brought a wrongful death medical malpractice case against a host of doctors and the hospital. One of the defendants was an anesthesiologist, Dr. Lorenzo, who had failed to recognize abnormal test results during the pre-operative clearance. The estate contended that had the defendant anesthesiologist pronounced these abnormalities, the surgery would have been cancelled and Ms. Espinosa would not have died.

The defendant doctor sought to have the case dismissed based on a failure to prove causation, e.g., that he was the legal cause of the patient’s death. Causation is a legal concept that bridges the gap between a defendant’s wrongdoing (negligence) and the damages sought by the plaintiff. In every personal injury and medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence was the legal and proximate cause of the injuries and damages that she is claiming.

Continue Reading →

Fourth District Court of Appeal Opines on Sufficient Evidence for Past Medical Expenses and Admission of Expert Testimony

November 4, 2018 | by The Grife Law Firm, P.A.

shutterstock_227581717-300x200 In the case of Walerowicz v. Armand-Hosang, the Fourth District Court of Appeal clarified its perspective on two points: 1) what is considered sufficient evidence to prove past medical expenses and 2) how to deal with admission of expert testimony that does not conform to the court’s trial order. In this case, the plaintiff, Mandy Armand-Hosang, sued for permanent bodily injuries she sustained in a car accident. As in most every auto accident case in Florida, Ms. Armand-Hosang, as the plaintiff, had to prove the causation and permanency of the her injuries and reasonableness and necessity of her medical bills. The Fourth District Court of Appeal sided with the plaintiff on both issues, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the plaintiff’s surgeon to testify regarding the causation and permanency of the plaintiff’s injuries, and the plaintiff had met the evidentiary burden to prove the reasonableness and necessity of her past medical expenses.

In many states, all that is required to establish reasonableness and necessity of past medical bills is merely entering the medical bills into evidence. Florida, on the other hand, requires a little more effort—but to what extent? In Walerowicz, to prove reasonableness and necessity, the plaintiff’s attorney relied on the plaintiff’s testimony about her treatment for her accident-related injuries, the treating surgeon’s testimony, and also offered the medical bills into evidence. The defendant argued that the testimony was insufficient to establish reasonableness and necessity because the plaintiff did not associate each specific bill to the injuries sustained in the accident.

Continue Reading →

Car Accidents in Florida

July 26, 2018 | by Michael K. Grife, Esq.

There were nearly 400,000 accidents in the state of Florida in 2016 and 166,000 of them involved injuries. Of those injuries, nearly 22,000 were incapacitating. While there is often clear fault in these tragic circumstances, victims are rarely compensated sufficiently for their suffering.

From working with our clients in Boynton Beach and surrounding areas, we know that these accidents are traumatic and cause financial hardship. Current and future medical bills and loss of wage issues can devastate a family. We can help.

Six common types of negligent accidents include:

Continue Reading →

Contingency Fee Clients Must Sign on the Dotted Line

July 9, 2018 | by The Grife Law Firm, P.A.

At some point in life, every person surely has received the age-old advice to read a contract before signing it. However, what if you are awoken from a comatose state only to realize that a contingency fee contract with a law firm was executed on your behalf?

On April 4^th, 2018, the Fourth District Court of Appeal decided the case of William O’Malley v. The Freeman Law Firm, which serves as a cautionary tale to lawyers who work on contingency fee agreements. In this case, the appellant, William O’Malley, was involved in a horrendous car wreck that left him in a coma for months. During this period, his mother sought representation on his behalf and signed a personal injury contingency fee contract as the personal representative of the Estate of William O’ Malley. Problem: the mother was never actually appointed as personal representative! Moreover, Mr. O’Malley had not executed a power of attorney in favor of his mother, nor had he been declared legally incompetent by a court, which could have led to an appointment of a legal guardian.

Continue Reading →

Determining the “Surviving Spouse” – At the Time of Injury or Death?

June 16, 2018 | by The Grife Law Firm, P.A.

If you have lost a loved one due the negligence of another person, the last thing you need is to be bombarded with questions about the status of your relationship with the deceased. Last month, the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Florida clarified this issue in a written opinion in Domino’s Pizza v. Wiederhold, discussing when a plaintiff qualifies as a “surviving spouse” for a wrongful death lawsuit.

The court explored the tragic case of an engaged couple that married after a disastrously life-altering car accident. The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle with her then-fiancée, who was forced to swerve into a median when a vehicle owned by a Domino’s franchisee suddenly pulled out in front of them. The car overturned a few times before coming to final rest in a ditch. The accident immediately left the man a quadriplegic, while the woman was unharmed. A month after the accident the man sued Domino’s, the franchisee owner, and the driver of the franchisee’s vehicle. The couple subsequently moved forward with their commitment and married before the man died a year later due to accident-related injuries. After her husband passed away, the woman was substituted as the plaintiff and filed an amended complaint to include a claim for wrongful death damages.

Continue Reading →

Staying Inbounds at Trial – TT of Indian River v. Fortson

January 23, 2018 | by Michael K. Grife, Esq.

In my experience as a trial lawyer, it is often times difficult for the parties of a lawsuit to understand the restrictive nature of the rules of evidence. There are narrow guidelines by which attorneys must conduct themselves when arguing to a jury. If a lawyer steps out-of-bounds during trial, his client’s favorable verdict might be overturned by an appellate court.

Such was the case in TT of Indian River v. Fortson, a recent appellate decision issued by Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal. In TT of Indian River, the plaintiff in a personal injury automobile accident case received a favorable jury verdict. However, due to some remarks made by her trial attorney, that verdict was overturned.

Continue Reading →

Reckless Youth – Liability for Teenaged Drivers

September 27, 2017 | by Michael K. Grife, Esq.

Summer break has ended here in Florida and schools are back in session. Consequently, there are an abundance of inexperienced teenaged drivers on the road. Many of these teenaged drivers are under 18 and driving their parents’ car. In 2015, there were 42,874 teenaged driver car crashes in Florida according to the Department of Highway Safety. At The Grife Law Firm, we have a wealth of experience representing people who have been seriously injured due to young, reckless drivers. Frequently, we are asked: Who can I hold responsible for the damages caused by a reckless teenaged driver?

Pursuant to Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine, the owner of a vehicle is liable for damages caused by the negligence of permissive users. This doctrine was first recognized in the landmark 1920 case of Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, wherein the Supreme Court of Florida held that, “[O]ne who authorizes and permits an instrumentality that is peculiarly dangerous in its operation to be used by another on the public highway, is liable in damages for injuries to third persons caused by the negligent operation of such instrumentality…” The rationale is that a motor vehicle is a potentially deadly piece of machinery that can cause serious harm, so the owner must bear some responsibility for damages caused by it. The hope is that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine will encourage vehicle owners to entrust only safe drivers to operate their cars. For purposes of our discussion, if a teenager drives in a reckless fashion and causes a car wreck, the owner of the at-fault vehicle will be held legally responsible for personal injury damages such as medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering.

Continue Reading →