South Florida Car Accident Law Blog

A Florida car accident lawsuit can involve a number of complex issues, including some related not to who's at fault, but which court should make that decision. In Brown v. Nagelhout, Florida's Supreme Court overturns the so-called "joint defendant rule," finding that a person injured in an accident can sue in any county in which any of the defendants reside.

Plaintiff Willie Brown was injured when the CSX train on which he was riding as a passenger collided with a truck owned by Helena Chemical and driven by Kim Nagelhout in Pasco County. He filed a personal injury lawsuit against Helena, Nagelhout and CSX in Broward County, where Brown resides. In response, Defendants filed a motion to transfer the matter to Pasco County court.

The county court granted Defendants' motion to transfer, finding that Pasco County was the proper venue for the suit because both Helena Chemical and Nagelhout reside there. The state's Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed this decision.

On further appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the decision, finding that it was based on a misinterpretation of the state's venue law. Generally, the court explained, a lawsuit may be brought "only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located." Where the action involves multiple defendants, Section 47.021, Florida Statutes (2011), provides that a plaintiff may bring an action "in any county in which any defendant resides." A Florida corporation's residence is determined by the location of its offices, while a foreign corporation may also be sued in the county where its registered agent is located.

In this case, Nagelhout resides in Pasco County, while Helena is a foreign company doing business in Florida with Pasco County offices and a Broward County registered agent. The court found that it was unclear whether CSX was a foreign or domestic company, but noted that it had Duval County offices and a Leon County registered agent. As a result, the court ruled that Brown could file the suit in Pasco, Broward, Duval or Leon counties.

Continue reading "Florida Supreme Court Overturns Joint Defendant Rule in Truck-Train Accident Case - Brown v. Nagelhout" »

In Florida, if someone else gets in a car accident while driving a vehicle that you own, you may be vicariously liable for any damages incurred by those injured. As the Fifth District Court of Appeal explains in Bowen v. Taylor-Christensen, however, vicarious liability under these circumstances can be imposed only where the "owner" has a beneficial interest in the car.

Thomas Bowen was struck by a car and killed while changing a tire on his car alongside a highway. Bowen's wife, Mary Jo, filed suit against Mary Taylor-Christensen, who was allegedly driving drunk when the accident occurred. Bowen also sued Robert Christensen, Taylor-Christensen's ex-husband, whose name was on the title of the car along with Taylor-Christensen's. Following trial, a jury ruled that Christensen was not liable under Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine because he did not own the car at the time of the accident.

On appeal, the Fifth District ruled that the trial court properly denied Bowen's motion for directed verdict in her favor on the claim against Christensen. Specifically, the court found that Christensen did not own the car at the time of the accident because he had gifted it to Taylor-Christensen.

Liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine - which imposes liability on the owner of an instrumentality that is "peculiarly dangerous in its operation" for injuries caused by the instrumentality's negligent operation by anyone who uses it with the owner's consent - is typically imposed based on legal title, the court explained. Nevertheless, "a narrow exception for the legal title owner to escape vicarious liability has been recognized where the holder of `mere naked title' is able to demonstrate the absence of beneficial ownership of the vehicle," the court noted.

In this case, Christensen testified that after the couple divorced in 2003 he attempted to reconcile the relationship, in part by buying Taylor-Christensen the car. He stated that the car was intended as a gift for her and that he never drove it after taking the vehicle to a car wash the day after he bought it. "In the ensuing two years, he never had access to the car, never had any authority over the car, never had a key, never insured it, and never had it registered," according to the court.

Continue reading "Man Who Held Title to Vehicle in Florida Car Accident Not Liable for "Dangerous Instrumentality," Court Rules - Bowen v. Taylor-Christensen" »

In Health First, Inc. v. Cataldo, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reviews a $2 million verdict in a Florida rear-end car accident case.

Cheryl Cataldo was injured in a car accident when hers was rear-ended by another car owned by Health First and driven by one of the company's employees. She was diagnosed with cervical strain and underwent surgery five months later. Cataldo claimed that she was no longer able to work as a dental hygienist following the accident.

Cataldo sued Health First and the employee, alleging that the employee's negligence caused the accident, which in turn resulted in her injury. She decided to withdraw claims associated with brain and dental injuries she allegedly incurred in the accident shortly before trial was set to begin. According to the Fifth District, "[t]hese claims had been areas of particular dispute, as defense counsel believed Cataldo had been caught in lies during discovery that impacted these claims." The trial court also ruled that Health First would not be allowed to present evidence related to the withdrawn claims in an attempt to impeach Cataldo.

The trial court denied Health First's request for continuance, in which the company's attorney argued that he needed extra time to prepare because the defense had been predicated on the withdrawn claims, Cataldo's medical records all included references to the dropped claims and defense counsel had planned to cross examine Cataldo based her alleged false statements to health care providers. The court also denied subsequent motions for mistrial on the same grounds.

At trial, Cataldo presented evidence of her spine injuries as well as bouts with depression stemming from those injuries. An expert testified that Cataldo was unable to work as a result of the injuries. The jury returned a verdict for Cataldo "in excess of $2,000,000," according to the Fifth District.

Continue reading "Court Upholds $2 Million Verdict in Florida Rear-End Accident Case - Health First, Inc. v. Cataldo" »

In Brown v. Montanez, the Fourth District Court of Appeal explains the psychotherapist-patient privilege and how it came into play in a South Florida car accident case in which one driver was allegedly on drugs at the time of the crash.

Plaintiff Nya Montanez's infant daughter, Yanely Gonzalez, was killed in a Florida car accident when a car driven by Jason Brown collided with the minivan Montanez was driving. Brown was later convicted for DUI as a result of the accident.

Montanez filed suit against Brown and his parents, the owners of the car he was driving, alleging that Brown's negligence caused the crash. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Brown was "on a crack cocaine binge at the time of the accident, and his parents knew that he had had a severe problem with substance abuse and had a very poor driving record," according to the court.

Before trial, Montanez's lawyers served a subpoena duces tecum on the Delray Recovery Center, where Brown was treated while awaiting trial on the DUI charges. Although Defendants objected, arguing that the production of the Center's file on Brown would violate the psychotherapist-patient privilege, the trial court ordered that the file be produced.

On appeal, the Fourth District quashed the trial court's order, finding that production of the Center's file was protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The court explained that Section 90.503, Florida Statutes "protects the confidential communications between the patient and the psychotherapist and the records of mental health treatment from disclosure to third parties." That specifically includes communications and records related to the patient's drug and alcohol addiction. The privilege includes both doctors and other treatment personnel and facilities.

Continue reading "Court Rules Car Accident Plaintiff Cannot Get Records on Driver's Post-Accident Substance Abuse Treatment - Brown v. Montanez" »