Miscellaneous - Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // The Science of Looming Motion and Looming Threshold in Rear-End Motor Vehicle Collisions

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Fri, 19 Dec 2025 18:56:18 GMT

Rear-end collisions account for more than 25 percent of all roadway motor vehicle accidents. The reflexive response is to blame the driver of the approaching vehicle – the one who strikes the vehicle ahead. Florida law reinforces this instinct by creating a rebuttable presumption of fault against the trailing driver. Gulle v. Boggs, 174 So. 2d 26, 27–29 (Fla. 1965) (When “a defendant runs into the rear of a plaintiff’s automobile while the plaintiff is stopped for a traffic light or at an intersection, there is a presumption of negligence of the defendant … . The presumption provides a prima facie case which shifts to the defendant the burden to go forward with the evidence to contradict or rebut the fact presumed. When the defendant produces evidence which fairly and reasonably tends to show that the real fact is not as presumed, then the impact of ‘the presumption is dissipated.’ Whether the ultimate fact has been established must then be decided by the jury from all the evidence before it without the aid of the presumption.”)

That presumption, however, is not absolute. Law enforcement, courts, and personal injury practitioners should resist the temptation to stop their analysis there. Attentive, reasonable drivers can – and sometimes do – collide with the rear of a leading or stationary vehicle in broad daylight through no fault of their own.

Our firm, together with Attorney Sean Domnick, represented a client in litigation against a motor coach company and its driver arising from precisely such a scenario. Our client was operating his employer’s passenger bus when he struck the rear of a motor coach stopped in a through lane of travel. There was no traffic condition requiring the stop. The motor coach was not disabled; it had not run out of fuel, suffered a mechanical failure, or experienced any emergency. Nevertheless, it remained stationary in a live traffic lane.

Our client approached from behind in the same lane with an unobstructed view beginning approximately 2,500 feet away. There were no vehicles in front of or beside him in any lane. He observed the motor coach at a distance, but did not perceive that it was stopped until he was too close to avoid a collision. The result was catastrophic injuries. (Our client was extricated from his vehicle using the Jaws of Life and airlifted to the hospital.)

We retained multiple experts to address discrete aspects of the case. An engineer testified regarding speeds, distances, and stopping calculations. A trucking expert addressed industry standards and safety practices. Medical experts explained the severity and permanence of our client’s injuries, and an economist quantified past and future economic losses. None of those experts, however, was qualified to explain why a reasonably attentive driver can collide with a stationary vehicle without being negligent.

That explanation lies within the domain of human factors science.

We retained a leading human factors expert to address this critical question. Rather than attempting a technical exposition here, I will briefly describe – at a lay level – the most significant principles at issue: “looming motion and looming threshold.”

In roadway safety, looming motion concerns the human ability to perceive whether an object ahead is moving or stationary. Counterintuitively, a stopped vehicle in the roadway can be among the most difficult hazards to detect, even in broad daylight. At long distances, a stationary vehicle can produce visual information indistinguishable from that of a moving vehicle traveling at the same speed as the observer. In such circumstances, the absence of angular expansion delays recognition that the object ahead represents a hazard. Absent strong visual cues – such as warning triangles, visible occupants outside the vehicle, or signs of roadside activity – the human visual system may not immediately register that a vehicle ahead is not moving.

Closely related is the role of expectation. Human perception is influenced by what a driver reasonably anticipates encountering. Expectation can delay the recognition of danger. In our case, the collision occurred on our client’s regular route, one he had driven daily for more than ten years. The location – near the entrance to a major theme park – was specifically designed to allow commercial passenger vehicles to approach without interruption or delay. In all those years, our client had never encountered a vehicle stopped in this portion of the roadway without an apparent reason.

His reasonable expectation was that traffic would continue flowing smoothly toward the entrance gate located 800 to 1,000 feet ahead. Accordingly, although he saw the motor coach, he did not perceive that it was stationary. The combination of diminished perceptual cues and reasonable expectation created the perfect storm. While the motor coach driver had multiple safe alternatives and made an affirmative choice to stop in a through lane, our client – due to a scientifically explainable failure of perception – was deprived of any meaningful opportunity for cognitive choice.

The concept of “looming distance” is well established in human factors research. Mathematical models can determine the distance at which a stationary hazard should become perceptible to a reasonably attentive driver. Predictably, litigation focuses on the variables—such as vehicle speed—to be used in those calculations. In this case, however, both sides’ engineers agree on the speed at impact.

The “looming threshold” is the point at which the rate of angular expansion becomes sufficient for the human visual system to register that an object ahead is stationary or closing rapidly. This threshold is not subjective guesswork; it is a measurable and well-studied phenomenon grounded in vision science.

The looming threshold occurs later—often dramatically later—when:

The stopped vehicle presents a large, uniform profile (e.g., a bus or motor coach);
There are no visual cues indicating distress or abnormality;
The roadway geometry and traffic flow create an expectation of uninterrupted movement; and
Lighting and contrast conditions do not emphasize depth or closure.

Until the looming threshold is crossed, a driver may see the vehicle without perceiving it as a hazard.

Our human factors expert opined – using established science – that by the time a reasonably attentive driver would have perceived the motor coach as stopped, there was insufficient time or distance to avoid the collision. Importantly, all evidence supported that our client was, in fact, attentive.

It also bears emphasis that perception and reaction are not synonymous. Even after a hazard is perceived, additional time is required for cognitive processing and physical response.

This discussion is not intended to suggest that trailing drivers are never at fault. Clearly, many rear-end collisions result from inattention or negligence. The takeaway is more modest, but critical: lawyers must be willing to look beyond presumptions and examine the science. When they do, the results can be both professionally rewarding and profoundly meaningful to the client.

The case was tried before an Orlando jury, which awarded nearly $2,000,000 in damages and apportioned fault almost equally between our client and the corporate owner of the stopped motor coach.

**********************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.

DISCLAIMER: This information provided by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a non-legal guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. It should not be considered legal advice or counseling. No such legal advice or counseling is either expressly or impliedly intended. This information is not a substitute for the advice or counsel of an attorney. If you require legal advice, you should seek the services of an attorney.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Reclaiming the Truth About the McDonald’s Coffee Case – And Why It Matters

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Tue, 30 Sep 2025 19:20:16 GMT

For decades, Corporate America has waged a calculated campaign to vilify trial lawyers and delegitimize civil lawsuits. The now-infamous McDonald’s coffee spill case has been cynically exploited as the poster child for “frivolous lawsuits.” The case is cited endlessly in media soundbites, political speeches, and boardroom talking points to convince the public that the justice system is out of control.

And sadly, the public has swallowed this propaganda—hook, line, and sinker.

Why would Corporate America want to discredit civil lawsuits?
The answer is simple: profits over people. By undermining the right of individuals to seek justice through the courts, corporations reduce their accountability for negligent and harmful conduct. Civil lawsuits are one of the few tools that force powerful interests to take responsibility. Limit those lawsuits, and you limit consequences. It’s that straightforward.

How does the propaganda work?
By fueling a false narrative of a “lawsuit crisis,” the public is stirred into demanding reform. Politicians—particularly those who proudly wear the “conservative” label—are more than happy to oblige. But not without a price. The loudest voices for lawsuit restrictions also tend to receive the most generous campaign contributions from corporate donors.

In response, these lawmakers push so-called “tort reform” laws that make it increasingly difficult for everyday Americans to take on big business in court. These laws don’t just stack the deck—they lock the courtroom doors.

It’s been happening for years, and it’s not just concerning—it’s dangerous. This is big business run amok.

Let’s go back to the McDonald’s coffee case.

Here are the facts:

In 1994, a New Mexico jury awarded $2.9 million to Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns after spilling McDonald’s coffee on her lap. She was seated in a parked car, attempting to add cream and sugar when the coffee spilled. She sustained burns so severe that she was hospitalized for eight days, required skin grafts, and was left with permanent scarring and pain. Her medical bills exceeded $11,000.

Before filing suit, Ms. Liebeck simply asked McDonald’s to cover her medical expenses. The company offered $800.

Here’s what the public rarely hears:

McDonald’s served its coffee at 195–205°F. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 3 seconds or less.
Experts testified that coffee at 160°F (a much safer temperature) would take 20 seconds to cause the same damage—time enough to react and avoid serious injury.
McDonald’s internal documents showed it had received over 700 burn complaints from hot coffee in the previous 10 years. The company had already paid out over $500,000 to settle similar claims.
The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced to $160,000 because Ms. Liebeck was found 20% at fault. They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages—roughly two days’ worth of McDonald’s coffee revenue—based on findings that McDonald’s acted with willful disregard for consumer safety.
The judge later reduced the punitive award to $480,000. Both sides appealed and the case was ultimately settled for an undisclosed amount.
The day after the verdict, the temperature of the coffee at that McDonald’s location was tested—reduced to 158°F.

Ms. Liebeck was not a serial litigant. She was a retired clerk, injured by a dangerously hot product. Her case was tried before a fair and impartial judge, with competent counsel on both sides, and a jury of everyday Americans. This wasn’t a rogue decision—it was the justice system working as designed.

The Bigger Picture

The Founding Fathers enshrined the civil jury system in the Constitution for a reason: it is the best safeguard a free society has against unchecked power. It’s not perfect, but it works remarkably well—if we let it. When mistakes occur, the system has mechanisms to correct them through judicial oversight and appellate review.

The smear campaign against the civil justice system isn’t about protecting the public from “greedy lawyers” or “runaway juries.” It’s about protecting corporate profits by weakening your right to hold wrongdoers accountable.

Believe in the civil jury system. It’s one of the last remaining ways for everyday people to stand on equal footing with the most powerful interests in our society.

*********************************************************

Contact us toll free at 866-785-GALE or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com) for a free, confidential consultation to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Medicare-Eligible Individuals With Group Health Insurance Beware!

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Mon, 07 Jul 2025 20:26:57 GMT

In our practice—focused on personal injury, medical negligence, workers’ compensation, and wrongful death—we routinely handle Medicare and health insurance liens. These entities often have statutory or contractual rights to be reimbursed from any settlement or judgment recovered from third parties, meaning those legally responsible for causing the harm.

This article addresses a separate legal issue involving medical expenses.

When individuals turn 65, they become eligible for Medicare. It’s not uncommon for those with private group health insurance to mistakenly believe they don’t need to enroll in Medicare at that time.

That assumption is generally accurate if the individual or their spouse is actively employed by a company with 20 or more employees. In such cases, the employer-sponsored group health plan is considered the primary payer, and Medicare functions as secondary coverage. These individuals remain covered even if they delay enrolling in Medicare, as long as the employer-sponsored group health plan is primary.

Problems arise when Medicare-eligible individuals have employer coverage through a company with fewer than 20 employees and fail to enroll in Medicare. In these situations, Medicare is considered the primary payer, and the employer plan may refuse to cover claims that Medicare should have paid. Moreover, if the group health insurer initially pays a claim it wasn’t responsible for—because Medicare should have been primary—it may seek to recover, or “claw back,” those payments from the medical providers. In turn, those providers often pursue the patient directly for the unpaid balance.

Similarly, if an individual is over 65 and has retiree health coverage or continues employer-sponsored insurance through COBRA (the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act), Medicare is considered the primary payer. The secondary coverage will only pay if Medicare has paid its portion first. Furthermore, if the secondary insurer mistakenly pays for services that Medicare should have covered, it has the right to claw back those funds, potentially from the provider or the patient.

There are no clear obligations for insurers, employers, or the government to inform individuals about how coordination-of-benefits rules may change once they become eligible for Medicare.

One potential remedy for individuals facing this dilemma is to pursue legal action against the broker responsible for managing the employer’s health insurance plan for failing to provide adequate information. This option is less than ideal.

*********************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Ignorance of a Document’s Contents Does Not Excuse Legal Obligations

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Wed, 02 Jul 2025 15:53:06 GMT

A similar principle applies to written instruments: ignorance of a document’s contents does not absolve a signatory of the responsibilities it imposes.

We pursued a personal injury action in Broward County against a homeowner after our client sustained serious injuries on the homeowner’s property during a construction project. One of our central theories of liability was that the homeowner assumed a nondelegable duty by undertaking the role of owner-builder.

The phrase “ignorance of the law is no defense” is a well-known legal maxim. It means that a person cannot escape liability simply by claiming they were unaware their conduct was unlawful.

Under Florida law, only licensed contractors are ordinarily permitted to obtain building permits and supervise construction work. However, Florida Statute § 489.103(7)(a)1 provides a narrow exemption: owners of single-family residences may act as their own contractors for improvements made for personal use, provided they execute specific documents acknowledging this status. In our case, the homeowner secured a permit under this exemption.

As a condition of receiving the permit, the homeowner signed both the permit application and the “Owner-Builder Disclosure Statement.” The document clearly states that by acting as an owner-builder, the homeowner assumes ultimate legal responsibility for the actions and negligence of those working under his direction—licensed or not.

Despite this, the homeowner hired an unlicensed contractor to oversee the project and took no supervisory role himself. Our client, a young and inexperienced laborer, was seriously injured when he fell from a ten-foot wall and struck his face on a metal pole. We have sued the unlicensed contractor for negligent supervision and failure to provide safe equipment. We have also sued the homeowner, asserting that under both the statute and the signed disclosures, he is legally responsible for the contractor’s negligence.

The homeowner claimed he did not read the documents and therefore did not understand the legal responsibilities he undertook. But Florida law does not recognize such a defense.

The Florida Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in All Florida Surety Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1956), where parties sought to avoid the obligations of a performance bond by claiming they failed to read it. The court held the documents binding, regardless.

The rule was reaffirmed in Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Bratton, 351 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1977):

“Unless one can show facts and circumstances to demonstrate that he was prevented from reading the contract, or that he was induced by statements of the other party to refrain from reading the contract, it is binding. No party to a written contract in this state can defend against its enforcement on the sole ground that he signed it without reading it.” (Emphasis added.)

The law requires individuals to exercise reasonable prudence. As the court stated in Johnson v. Green, 54 So. 2d 44, 46 (Fla. 1951):

“Our legal system does not excuse people for failing to exercise reasonable prudence.”

Here, the homeowner voluntarily signed official documents that plainly set forth his obligations under Florida law. We convinced him that he could not disavow those obligations by claiming ignorance, resulting in a substantial confidential settlement.

*********************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Sovereign Immunity in Florida: A Shield from Accountability

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Thu, 26 Jun 2025 15:15:30 GMT

Sovereign immunity stems from the medieval doctrine that “The King can do no wrong.” In Florida, this principle historically meant that government entities could not be held financially responsible for harm caused by their negligence.

That changed in 1975, when the Florida Legislature enacted Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, which partially waived sovereign immunity. For the first time, individuals could sue the state and its subdivisions—cities, counties, municipalities—for certain torts. However, this right came with significant limitations. Most notably, the statute capped damages at $100,000 per person and $200,000 per incident, regardless of the actual extent of the injuries or the number of victims. These caps remained unchanged for 36 years.

Modest Reform, Lingering Injustice

In 2009, the Legislature passed a long-overdue amendment, increasing the caps to $200,000 per individual and $300,000 per claim, effective July 1, 2011. While this was a step in the right direction, it remains grossly inadequate for victims of catastrophic government negligence.

Under these limits, if four people are severely injured by a government employee’s negligence, they must divide a maximum of $300,000 among them—no one may recover more than $200,000 individually, even if their injuries are lifelong or fatal. Not even a jury’s decision overrides the cap. For example, say a jury, after weighing the evidence, decides that a person’s damages, between pain and economic loss, exceed $5 million. After the verdict is rendered, the judge will thank the jurors for their service and send them on their way. In the case of a single harmed person, the most the court can award to that person is the $200,000 cap. That’s perverse. The jury’s opinion, after weighing the evidence fairly and impartially, is entirely disregarded in favor of unfair money-influenced legislation.

In 2025, two bills were put forward in the Florida Legislature to increase the limits to $1 million/$3 million, with incremental increases over time. The bills were opposed by organizations such as the Florida League of Cities, Florida Association of Counties, and Florida Hospital Association, while 25 lobbyists were amassed to kill the bills. While one of the bills was approved by the House, both died before reaching the Governor’s desk.

Planning-Level Immunity: An Untouchable Zone

Despite the partial waiver, absolute immunity remains intact for governmental decisions classified as planning-level or discretionary. These include judgments regarding the design, improvement, or initial construction of infrastructure—such as road layouts, intersection design, and placement of traffic control devices.

However, Florida courts have carved out a narrow exception: When a government entity is aware of a serious hazard that creates a hidden danger—effectively a trap—for the public, immunity is waived, and liability may attach (subject again to the statutory damage caps).

When Immunity Becomes Indifference

Our firm recently litigated a case that illustrates the dangers of this doctrine. We represented the husband and three young children of a woman who drowned after her cousin’s car veered into a canal at a poorly marked curve on a dark, rainy night. We uncovered that other vehicles had previously gone off the road at the same location, resulting in fatalities and near-fatal accidents. Just two months after our case, another young woman died under almost identical circumstances at the same curve.

The danger was well known. Still, no corrective action was taken until after these avoidable tragedies. After our lawsuit was instituted, one of the responsible government entities installed an extended guardrail—a fix costing very little —but only after multiple preventable deaths.

We argued, successfully, that this was not a protected planning-level decision. Rather, it was a failure to correct a known trap. But even when liability is established, the available remedy remains a fraction of what private defendants would face.

The Real Problem: Lack of Accountability

This case underscores the greatest flaw in sovereign immunity: a lack of financial accountability. Government entities, shielded from large verdicts, face little incentive to act with the same diligence expected of private citizens or corporations. Where a private business may be compelled to act swiftly to avoid multi-million-dollar judgments, the government can act slowly—or not at all—knowing that its worst-case financial exposure is capped by law.

In effect, sovereign immunity insulates misconduct and dulls the motivation to prevent harm. When negligence results in death or permanent injury, a figurative slap on the wrist is the only consequence.

It’s not just outdated. It’s unjust.

Time for Change

Our firm firmly believes that sovereign immunity, in both its absolute and limited forms, should be abolished or substantially reformed. Government entities should be held to the same standard of care as private individuals and corporations when their negligence causes serious harm.

In a just society, no one—least of all the government—should be above accountability.

**********************************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Why Florida’s Sovereign Immunity Cap Defeats Accountability and Justice

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Tue, 10 Jun 2025 20:42:06 GMT

One of the central purposes of a strong civil justice system is to promote public safety by holding wrongdoers financially accountable. When negligent individuals or corporations know they may face significant financial liability, they are far more likely to act responsibly. Short of criminal prosecution, few things are more effective at incentivizing safe conduct than the threat of losing money.

Sovereign immunity, however, undercuts this principle. Rooted in the old-world doctrine that “the king can do no wrong” (Latin: Rex non potest peccare), sovereign immunity was designed to shield monarchs from legal consequences. Today, this concept survives in modern constitutional monarchies like the United Kingdom, Japan, and the Netherlands. Unfortunately, it has also made its way into American law—particularly in states like Florida.

Florida’s Version of Sovereign Immunity

Florida has adopted a modified form of sovereign immunity for civil cases, including personal injury and wrongful death claims. Under Florida Statute § 768.28(5)(a), the state and its agencies are shielded from full liability. Compensation for damages caused by a government entity is capped at $200,000 per individual and $300,000 per incident, regardless of how catastrophic the harm may be.

So, whether someone suffers minor injuries or a family loses a loved one due to government negligence, the total financial exposure for the state remains the same. This cap applies even if a jury awards millions in damages based on compelling evidence and clear fault.

Why the Cap Undermines Public Policy

Florida’s sovereign immunity cap actively defeats the public policy it claims to serve. Instead of promoting safety and accountability, it does the opposite—discouraging justice and denying fair compensation.

1. Discourages Responsible Conduct

When the worst financial consequence a government agency faces is $300,000—no matter the harm—there’s little incentive to improve safety protocols, correct systemic failures, or admit fault. This undermines the civil justice system’s role in deterring negligence.

2. Discourages Legal Representation

Most personal injury and wrongful death attorneys won’t take sovereign immunity cases unless there’s a non-sovereign party also responsible. Why? Because:

The potential recovery is severely limited.
Government defendants often fight the hardest, spending taxpayer money to drag out litigation.
Even a large jury verdict changes nothing—the cap still applies.

3. Undermines Judicial Economy

Another core principle of civil law is judicial economy—resolving disputes efficiently and avoiding unnecessary litigation. Sovereign immunity caps frustrate this goal. In typical cases, the threat of a high jury verdict encourages settlements. But in cap cases, sovereign defendants often refuse to settle—even in clear-cut cases—because they know they’ll never owe more than the cap, no matter what happens in court.

4. Renders Florida’s Settlement Encouragement Law Toothless

Florida Statute § 768.79 allows plaintiffs to recover attorney’s fees and costs if they obtain a judgment 25% greater than a properly served settlement offer. This statute is highly effective at encouraging reasonable settlements in non-cap cases. But in cap cases, it’s practically meaningless.

For example, even if a jury awards $2 million and the plaintiff is entitled to $350,000 in attorney’s fees under § 768.79, the sovereign still only pays the cap amount. The incentive to settle is lost.

A Notable Exception: Workers’ Compensation

Interestingly, the sovereign immunity cap does not apply in workers’ compensation claims. Government employers can be held accountable for the full value of benefits under Florida’s workers’ comp system. That said, these benefits do not include compensation for pain and suffering—often the largest and most meaningful component of a personal injury or wrongful death claim. Still, sovereign exposure in workers’ comp cases can easily exceed the cap, especially in cases involving long-term disability or death.

It’s Time to Retire the Cap

The sovereign immunity cap is outdated. If it ever served a valid purpose, that time has long passed. In modern America, where governments operate complex institutions like hospitals, schools, and transportation systems, they must be held to the same standard of accountability as private actors. The current law creates two tiers of justice—one for victims harmed by private entities, and a lesser one for those harmed by the government.

A Final Word

If you or a loved one has been harmed due to the negligence of a government entity, speak with a qualified attorney to understand your rights. While sovereign immunity presents serious legal hurdles, it doesn’t mean you’re entirely without options.

********************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com and kgale@jeffgalelaw.com) to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Sovereign Immunity Strikes Again — Not Good!!!

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:11:49 GMT

We just received a telephone call from a heartbroken mother whose 47-year old daughter died a few years ago after falling into a diabetic coma. A well-being, or safety check, call was made to the local police department a day after the young woman phoned to inform her employer that she wasn’t feeling well. A law enforcement officer went to her home that day, but her parents believe that the officer failed to take appropriate actions as her car was in the driveway and the windows of her home were open even though it was raining. The officer did not make contact with the woman or attempt to go into the home. She was found deceased in her home two days later. The mother believes her daughter was incapacitated but alive at the time of the safety call and could have been rescued if she had been discovered then and emergency care rendered.

Case law supports the bringing of a lawsuit against the police department. Unfortunately, sovereign immunity makes it a case that few, if any, lawyers are willing to undertake. We were not the first lawyers the mother called. The others turned her down. So did we. The reason why is because the risks and costs associated with litigating the case far outweigh the potential recovery of $200,000. Regardless of a case’s merit, because of sovereign immunity and the relatively minor consequence of a loss, government entities tend to fight every claim hard to discourage otherwise legitimate efforts.

A case against the police department could be brought under the so-called common law “undertaker’s doctrine:”

[i]n every situation where a man undertakes to act, or to pursue a particular course, he is under an implied legal obligation or duty to act with reasonable care, to the end that the person or property of others may not be injured by any force which he sets in operation, or by any agent for which he is responsible. If he fails to exercise the degree of caution which the law requires in a particular situation, he is held liable for any damage that results to another, just as if he had bound himself by an obligatory promise to exercise the required degree of care…. [E]ven “where a man interferes gratuitously, he is bound to act in a reasonable and prudent manner according to the circumstances and opportunities of the case.“

Banfield v. Addington, 104 Fla. 661, 140 So. 893, 896 (1932) (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied) (citing 1 Thomas A. Street, Foundations of Legal Liability 92 (1906)) (quoting Flint & Walling Mfg. Co. v. Beckett, 167 Ind. 491, 79 N.E. 503, 506 (1906)). In Union Park Memorial Chapel v. Hutt, 670 So.2d 64 (Fla.1996), the Florida Supreme Court reasoned:

It is clearly established that one who undertakes to act, even when under no obligation to do so, thereby becomes obligated to act with reasonable care. See Slemp v. City of North Miami, 545 So.2d 256 (Fla.1989) (holding that even if city had no general duty to protect property owners from flooding due to natural causes, once city has undertaken to provide such protection, it assumes the responsibility to do so with reasonable care); Banfield v. Addington, 104 Fla. 661, 667, 140 So. 893, 896 (1932) (holding that one who undertakes to act is under an implied legal duty to act with reasonable care to ensure that the person or property of others will not be injured as a result of the undertaking); Kowkabany v. Home Depot, Inc., 606 So.2d 716, 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (holding that by undertaking to safely load landscaping timbers into vehicle, defendant owed duty of reasonable care to bicyclist who was struck by timbers protruding from vehicle window); Garrison Retirement Home v. Hancock, 484 So.2d 1257, 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (holding that retirement home that assumed and undertook care and supervision of retirement home resident owed duty to third party to exercise reasonable care in supervision of resident’s activities). As this Court recognized over sixty years ago in Banfield v. Addington, “[i]n every situation where a man undertakes to act, … he is under an implied legal obligation or duty to act with reasonable care, to the end that the person or property of others may not be injured.” 104 Fla. at 667, 140 So. at 896….

Voluntarily undertaking to do an act that if not accomplished with due care might increase the risk of harm to others or might result in harm to others due to their reliance upon the undertaking confers a duty of reasonable care, because it thereby “creates a foreseeable zone of risk.” McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla.1992); Kowkabany, 606 So.2d at 720-21….

Id. at 66-67 (emphasis supplied) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A (1965) in omitted portion).

The “undertaker’s doctrine” applies to both governmental and nongovernmental entities. Clay Elec. v Johnson, 873 So.2d 1182, 1186 (Fla., 2003).

It is undisputed that the police department affirmatively and specifically undertook to check on the 47-year old woman. Friends and family reasonably relied on law enforcement to do so responsibly. If the case proceeded to trial, challenging questions regarding the reasonableness of law enforcement’s efforts and whether it would have made a difference will be asked among others.

*********************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Arbitration is Un-American

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Thu, 27 Oct 2022 18:57:05 GMT

The 7th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1791, codifies the importance of jury trials in civil cases to the framework in the American Way. Here is the amendment’s simple language:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Jury trials allow everyday citizens, guided by the law and the facts, to pass judgment on civil matters between contesting parties. The concept is that the collective wisdom of juries consisting of our peers, devoid of bias and preference, will render just decisions. The system, which, in my view, is the greatest system devised by any society for handling such matters, has worked remarkably well.

Arbitration is a threat to the civil jury trial system. Wikipedia describes Arbitration as “a form of alternative dispute resolution that resolves disputes outside the judiciary courts. The dispute will be decided by one or more persons, which renders the ‘arbitration award'”. For the most part, arbitrators are lawyers and former judges. In Florida, court-appointed arbitrators must be members of The Florida Bar.

There are two main ways parties end up in arbitration. When it is by court-appointment, the parties must agree to arbitrate. Without this agreement, the case will stay within the judicial court system and proceed to a trial by jury unless the plaintiff, the complaining party, has requested a bench trial. The other way parties end up in arbitration is if the complaining party signed a document at the outset of his or her relationship with the other party consenting to resolve disputes through arbitration. Arbitration clauses are commonly found in consumer contracts and employment contracts. For example, the typical contract for cell phone services between customer and provider, say AT&T, will contain an arbitration provision. We’ve all signed these agreements without reading the fine print.

Some arbitration agreements have profound consequences. In Massage Envy Franchising, LLC v. Jane Doe, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1151 (Fla. 5th DCA May 27, 2022), a woman filed a multicount complaint against Massage Envy alleging that her massage therapist sexually assaulted her during a massage. She requested a jury trial. Massage Envy responded by filing a pleading seeking to compel arbitration. The trial court denied Massage Envy’s request. Massage Envy appealed the ruling. The 5th District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court, thus forcing the sexual assault claim to be decided by a paid arbitrator rather than a jury of everyday citizens. The arbitration provision in Massage Envy was contained within a sixteen-page Terms of Use Agreement Ms. Doe was handed when she checked in for her massage appointment.

Sadly, while arbitration is generally favored by the courts, Massage Envy, it can and should be challenged. Because arbitration is highly disfavored by plaintiffs, who prefer their day in court, a significant amount of case law has been developed over the years through challenges. This is the subject of another blog.

*********************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Proceed Cautiously With Settlement Releases

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Sat, 18 Dec 2021 19:27:12 GMT

Think of an injury case like navigating a ship from one port to another. Signing up the case is the equivalent of throwing off the ropes and pulling safely away from the dock. Being at sea is analogous to litigation. Some days you will eat the bear and some days the bear will eat you. Stay your course. Invariably, chart adjustments will be necessary, but the final destination always remains the same: favorable resolution of the case. Settling the case equates to pulling into port. However, it is not the last act. The ship must be successfully docked and secured. The Settlement Release is part of this final act. It must be done properly to avoid damaging the ship.

Our law firm handles both workers’ compensation and personal injury/wrongful death cases. It is not uncommon to have both types of cases arising out of one accident. For example, we represent a gentleman who suffered numerous catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle crash. Since the accident happened in the course and scope of his employment, he was covered under workers’ compensation. We recently settled the workers’ compensation case. The common law liability case, against the second vehicle’s owner and our client’s co-worker [brought under a theory of gross negligence to overcome workers’ compensation immunity], remains ongoing.

As part of the workers’ compensation mediated settlement, the workers’ compensation carrier agreed that the settlement did not affect the liability case against the third party or the co-worker. Nevertheless, the General Release it submitted to us contained wording that could be construed as preventing our client from proceeding against the co-worker. We have reworded it to avoid this outcome.

This scenario resembles another case presently pending in our office in which we represent a gentleman who lost a leg while operating a lawnmower. We settled his common law liability case against the owner of the lawnmower one week before the workers’ compensation case was settled against the employer. We are now in the paperwork stage of both cases. Even though both cases are settled, we must nevertheless be careful to avoid any language either side might try to use to nullify an agreement. We have not yet received the liability release from the other side. However, this week we received the workers’ compensation General Release and had to modify it to eliminate any construction that could threaten the liability settlement.

Defendants like to use broad release language — not to be confused with confidentiality and hold harmless language, which can be the topic of another blog — in their Releases which often goes beyond the reasonable understanding of the settling parties. In many instances it doesn’t matter. The resolved case is the only possible case that can or will be pursued. However, it is still wise to pair down the wording to reflect the actual settlement. When it does matter, the consequential language cannot be allowed to remain or it must be qualified to limit its scope.

Anyone wishing to discuss these issues or see the language we include in our Releases to protect the rights of our clients, feel free to phone or email.

**************************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Florida Politicians Do Not Like “We the People”

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Tue, 11 May 2021 19:02:09 GMT

Within the past two weeks, three bills limiting the rights of everyday citizens to control how they are governed were signed into law in Florida.

On May 10, 2021, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 1890. The bill places a $3,000 cap on contributions to political committees trying to put proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot.

Constitutional amendment ballot initiatives are a citizen’s way of creating law. The right extends back to Florida’s 1968 Constitution. Examples of successful initiatives include approval of medical marijuana and a pathway for restoration of felon voting rights. Getting a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot is a steep uphill climb. It requires forming and registering a committee, getting approval of the initiative language from the Attorney General and Florida Supreme Court, and securing thousands of signatures. Once the initiative is on the ballot, it requires 60% approval from voters for passage. Financial resources provide the wherewithal to accomplish all of these goals. SB 1890 may be an insurmountable hurdle. Recognizing this, the American Civil Liberties Union has wasted no time in filing a lawsuit in federal court in Tallahassee, Florida claiming that SB 1890 “burdens and chills” free speech and association under the First Amendment.

Gov. DeSantis, a vocal supporter of former President Trump’s claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election, also signed a bill restricting voting rights. SB 90 limits access to mail-in ballots and drop boxes as well as tightens identification requirements for voting by mail. The measure becomes law just seven months after Florida recorded its cleanest election in decades. Critics of the bill argue that it is designed to disenfranchise minority voters due to them being less likely to possess all forms of identification, have access to a car, or take time off from work.

Finally, Gov. DeSantis approved a bill creating harsh criminal penalties for those arrested for engaging in public protests. This was done in the context of protests nationwide, some in Florida, in response to the death of George Floyd. Micah Kubic, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, says that “the goal of this law is to silence dissent and create fear among Floridians who want to take to the streets to march for justice.” According Florida Senate Minority Leader Gary Farmer, “This language could be used and interpreted and applied in a way to subject peaceful protesters to punishment for crimes that they simply happen to be present for.” Nailah Summers of Dream Defenders, believes that the law is designed to affect minority communities. Given that DeSantis signed the bill in a ceremony while surrounded but nothing but white faces, the concerns seem legitimate.

To this observer, these events are further evidence that our so-called elected representatives do not like or trust us, “We the People.”

********************************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Dealing With Medical Payments Made by the Wrong Entity During a Pending Florida Workers’ Compensation Case

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Fri, 19 Feb 2021 18:49:52 GMT

It is not unusual for entities other than the workers’ compensation insurance carrier to pay medical expenses following a work-related accident. The most common payors are health insurance carriers, Medicare, and Medicaid. (PIP (a/k/a “No Fault”) insurance also pays if the accident involves motor vehicles, but since their rights are different than those of the other entities mentioned above for purposes of this blog, PIP will not be addressed in this blog.)

Since workers’ compensation is supposed to be the primary payor — PIP can add a wrinkle to this concept. See section 627.736(4), Florida Statutes — the other entities are entitled to reimbursement for the payments they have made. How the reimbursement is made depends on when, during the life of the workers’ compensation case, the payment is made. If it is made post-settlement, the payment is typically made as part of a negotiated agreement between the entities and the injured worker’s attorney. This is always the situation when the workers’ compensation employer/carrier denies responsibility for the accident and injuries throughout the entire case. Alternatively, when the carrier has accepted compensability of the claim it may agree as part of the negotiated workers’ compensation settlement to satisfy the liens. In this circumstance, hold harmless language should be included in the settlement agreement to protect the claimant in case the carrier fails to be proactive in resolving the liens and the entities come after the claimant for repayment.

While the workers’ compensation case is ongoing, we always make a claim against the workers’ compensation carrier to be responsible for the medical bills paid by the other entities. If the workers’ compensation carrier agrees to be responsible, it should coordinate with the medical providers to have them repay the funds they have received from the other entities. Once the reimbursements are made, the workers’ compensation carrier will pay the medical providers in accordance with the Florida Workers’ Compensation Fee Schedule.

This convoluted procedure makes sense. Workers’ compensation medical bills are supposed to be paid per the Fee Schedule. The amount may be more or less than what the other entities have paid. It is much easier if the medical providers simply repay what has been paid, then accept from the workers’ compensation carrier the amounts due under the Fee Schedule.

Once the workers’ compensation carrier has agreed to pay the medical providers, we have yet to be put into a situation of having to pursue a legal remedy to enforce the agreement. One way we protect ourselves from getting into this situation is by obtaining proof before closing the case that the medical providers have been paid. This is done by requesting a printout of the workers’ compensation benefits paid.

********************************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Shifting Legal Defense Theories in a Workers’ Compensation Case and Trump’s Impeachment Trial

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Wed, 29 Jan 2020 20:34:03 GMT

Trump’s shifting legal defense reminds me of one of our firm’s more interesting past cases.

We represented a lady who fell and suffered a badly broken bone in her leg because of a dangerous condition on her employer’s property. At the time of the accident she had multiple sclerosis, but it was in remission, helped along by Cytoxan therapy. She had been leading a full life, including full time employment. Sadly, following the accident the MS reared it’s ugly head like never before. She became wheelchair bound and required 24/7 attendant care.

We argued that the broken bone caused the MS to become active, that, in other words, it aggravated the MS. Defense counsel argued that trauma cannot aggravate MS. She hired the head of the Dept. of Neurology of a prominent Florida hospital as her expert. As it turned out, this doctor was a pipe smoking blowhard who pretended to be an authority but really knew nothing about the subject at hand. (During a break in his deposition, I walked into the men’s restroom and actually caught him standing at the urinal, pipe in mouth, desperately reading an article on the subject. We made eye contact and I turned around and walked out.) He was exposed and shamed. In contrast, our expert, Dr. William Sheramata (deceased), who happened to be the client’s treating doctor, was an internationally renowned MS expert. He was also a prince of a gentleman and brilliant.

Like the evidence against Trump, our evidence was overwhelming. Whereas defense counsel started out by arguing that trauma cannot aggravate MS, she abandoned that position and by closing arguments came up with the Hail Mary proposition that it was — I’ll never forget these words — “childhood angst,” the stress of having young children, rather than a severely broken leg bone, that aggravated her MS. A full 180 degree turnaround, yet still ignoring the real cause. This was a bench trial and, I kid you not, the judge ruled in our favor on the spot.

All along, Trump, et al. have been arguing “No quid pro quo,” it was “a perfect phone call.” However, as the evidence of extortion — release of U.S. Congressional aid to Ukraine in exchange for election interference — became undeniable, the defense has morphed into: “extortion is not an impeachable offense.”

The judge in my case didn’t buy the defense’s “childhood angst” argument for one minute. The American public is not buying Trump’s argument either.

Impeachment Article I — Abuse of Power: Guilty as charged!

Impeachment Article II — Obstruction of Justice: Guilty as charged!

********************************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Where We Stand

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Fri, 20 Jul 2018 21:29:41 GMT

July 25, 2018; Facebook

Russia has broken into our home and Trump wants us to be gracious hosts.

July 25, 2018; Facebook If honest elections, a free press, and civil rights aren’t your priorities, what is it about America that you value? July 22, 2018; Facebook Trump v. Putin is like a theatrical WWW phony v. an MMA killer. Making matters worse is that the match is rigged. July 21, 2018; Facebook

Trump knows that his militant base is very stupid (x 100) and that the moneyed interests are selfish pigs willing to go along, and he believes that the combination of both will keep him afloat. A majority of Americans see him for what he is, but don’t have the power now to do anything about it.

I’d rather be powerless than stupid or craven.

July 20, 2018; Facebook

Trump is in free fall and the country is being sucked down in his noxious wake. For more than 20 years he has been the bag man for dirty Russian money. This is how he was able to stay afloat when no U.S. bank would touch him with a 10 foot pole, and it is why he doesn’t dare disclose his tax returns and is deathly afraid of Putin (who has all of the dirt on him). This is not revelatory news.

Trump knows his exposure and is becoming unhinged before our eyes. On one side, he is being pursued by the most imposing team of lawyers and investigators ever assembled led by the preeminent law enforcement officer in American history. On the other side he is being squeezed by Putin, the cold-hearted, steely-eyed keeper of his deepest and darkest secrets.

The gig is almost up and Trump knows it. Being a sleezebag for an entire lifetime has its consequences. At some point, the forces of nature catch up to you. In the immortal words of Heavyweight Champion Joe Louis, The Brown Bomber, “You can run, but you can’t hide.”

Trump, we know where you are and we’re coming to get you.

Sweet dreams, Meathead.

July 19, 2018; Facebook

Despite Trump’s BS about being willing to meet with Special Prosecutor Mueller, said as recently as last night in a CBS interview, everyone knows he won’t do it. It will take a subpoena to compel his testimony.

Tonight I heard a former Federal Prosecutor, with 30 years of experience, posit that Mueller won’t issue such a subpoena. The reason why is not good news for Comrade Trump.

He believes that Mueller will not be issuing a subpoena on Trump because Trump is soon to become, if he is not already, the “Target” of the SP’s criminal investigation. “Target” represents the highest level of exposure under a federal criminal investigation, and just as a defendant has a Constitutional Right against self-incrimination (5th Amendment), the U.S. Justice Dept. has a policy against issuing subpoenas against Targets to keep from implicating the 5th Amendment. Paul Manafort was not subpoenaed. Neither were Gates and the countless others who have been indicted, some whom have pled guilty. In 30 years with the Justice Dept., this Federal Prosecutor never issued a subpoena against a Target or saw it done by any other prosecutor.

Sweet dreams, Meathead.

July 19, 2018; Facebook Word of the day: Apologist (Clue: Trump has an army of them) July 17, 2018; Facebook

Hey Trumpis, here’s another example of what your imbecility has wrought on America: Since April, the United Secret Secret Service has been physically blocking Jared Kushner from being served with a subpoena in a civil case involving Russian hacking.

July 17, 2018; Facebook

Trump (7/16/2018): ‘There is no reason why “it would be Russia” behind election meddling.’ Trumpis: “Ah, yeah, duh, that makes sense.”

Trump (7/17/2018): ‘There is no reason why “it wouldn’t be Russia” behind election meddling.’ Trumpis: “Ah, yeah, duh, that makes sense.”

July 17, 2018; Facebook

Downplaying Trump’s sellout, insufferable Faux News twit Tucker Carlson rated Russia’s continued efforts at meddling in U.S. elections as 150 on the list of America’s concerns. In others words, Trump being Putin’s puppet is an overblown concern.

You can’t make this stuff up.

July 16, 2018; Facebook What does it say that Trump is willing to meet privately with Putin but refuses to sit down with Special Prosecutor Mueller? July 16, 2018; Facebook Word of the day: Toady (e.g., Trump vis-a-vis Putin) July 16, 2018; Facebook

72 hours after 12 Russians were indicted for committing criminals acts against America, Trump spends 2 hours and 15 minutes in private with their ringleader then hits the stage and blames everyone but himself and Putin for everything.

Not good.

July 16, 2018; Facebook

I believe that SP Mueller timed these indictments to try to gain some control over how far Trump would go in selling out America to Russia. Mueller, a decorated Vietnam soldier and head ot the FBI for 13 years, is a true American patriot. His fear was that an unrestrained Trump would sell the house out from under us. The indictments served their purpose. Trump’s every move with Putin is now being closely scrutinized and deservedly criticized.

This latest round of 12 indictments are not the last we will see on this matter. The next round will likely involve Americans.

July 15, 2018; Facebook

Trump: “Mr. President, the heat is on.” Putin: “Maybe on you, Donnie, but not on me.” Trump: “Sir, may I at least announce that I asked you to turn over the indicted Russian agents to American authorities?” Putin: “Say whatever you want, Donnie, say whatever you want.”

July 14, 2018; Facebook

“Trump, due to arrive in the UK later today, is a racist, a serial liar and either a sexual abuser or someone who falsely brags about being one in the apparent belief that this will impress other men,” The Scotsman, Scotland’s national newspaper.

July 14, 2018; Facebook Hey Trumpis, what do you think Saint Reagan would be doing/saying now about Russia’s attack on America? July 13, 2018; Facebook

If Donnie Bone Spurs had an ounce of regard for the U.S., he’d get his lard ass back to America forthwith and declare Cold War II on damn Russia. If he meets with Putin now, it’s high treason.

July 13, 2018; Facebook

These charges will certainly make the one-on-one talks between Comrade Trump and Comrade Putin more interesting. What are the chances Trump presses Putin to turn these indictees over to U.S. authorities? Zero to none? SP Mueller signed the Indictment. The noose is tightening!!!

July 8, 2018; Facebook Good news of the week: Mueller and his team of professionals have another week of information gathering in the books. July 7, 2018; Facebook

Trumpism is the same strain of virus that has resided within the human species from the beginning of time. It is incurable. From time to time through the ages it rears its ugly head to a position of prominence with dire consequences. Now is one of those times. A World War was once fought to smash it down.

July 6, 2018; Facebook

This is you, Trumpis. You’ve crawled into bed with one deranged MoFo. Hope you’re enjoying the cheap thrills.

July 4, 2018; Facebook

Don’t be fooled by haters who wrap themselves in the flag while tearing at the fabric which has made our country great.

Celebrate the 4th with meaning.

July 3, 2018; Facebook

Written by Dan Gelber, the Mayor of Miami Beach. He gets it.

America the Beautiful became my favorite song when Smokey Robinson included it in a stirring mash-up with the National Anthem at Fenway Park during Game 5 of the 1986 World Series.

When the song was written in 1893 by Katharine Bates as she hiked Pikes Peak in Colorado, she penned it as a poem. The line in her first verse — “God shed his grace on thee” – almost suggests that America is divinely chosen. That it is …great as a matter of God’s will. Of course, at the time, women didn’t have the right to vote, and African-Americans were still largely treated as chattel.

To understand the point Bates was actually making you have to read her poem in its entirety. It’s not about the greatness of America; it is about the promise of an America that can be great. While she marvels at the physical and topography of the “fruited plains” and “alabaster cities’” she also recognizes that our country is not without its blemishes.

My favorite verse:

America, America, God mend thine every flaw Confirm thy soul in self-control Thy liberty in law

Bates doesn’t view America as intrinsically great – great is something you have to work at because nations, like people, will sometimes surrender to lesser instincts. Nations sometimes take a route that is less than exceptional.

The America Bates celebrates, is a nation that resists its lesser instincts and seeks higher ground. An America that leans toward virtue because no matter how we celebrate affluence, power and celebrity, we should revere character. It is not the strength of our military that makes us great, but that we seek to deploy it righteously. Our wealth isn’t extraordinary, but our charity is. And our intellect isn’t unique, but that we use it to improve the human condition that is so distinguishing.

Or as Bates herself once commented, “our greatness must be crowned with goodness.” Our nation feels very divided today and our public discourse runs contrary to Bates’ vision of America. Our leaders seem to appeal to only our lesser instincts.

Bates had it right. She was celebrating a nation of people who more than self their country loved, and mercy more than life. Who believed success should be noble and gains divine

This is the America I celebrate. Happy Fourth of July!

Dan

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Muhammad Ali — Tribute to an American Hero

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Sat, 04 Jun 2016 18:18:41 GMT

I remember the night, in 1964, that a young Cassius Clay defeated world champion Sonny Liston at the Miami Beach Convention Center. I waited anxiously by the radio for a report of the outcome. He was expected to be eaten alive by the big bad bear Liston and become a footnote in the history books. I was more relieved that he wasn’t hurt than excited about the victory. The next day Cassius Clay became Muhammad Ali, and the rest is much, much more than a footnote in the history books.

While his ring exploits are legendary — Olympic Gold Medal, the Thrilla in Manila, dismantling George Foreman in 8 rounds in Zaire, Africa in the fight known as The Rumble in the Jungle — his greatness came from the character he demonstrated both in the ring and out. In refusing to participate in an unconscionable conflict — the United States never formally declared war in the so-called Vietnam War — in defiance of White Establishment America, he was stripped of his world title, barred from fighting for three and a half years during the prime of his physical prowess, and convicted of draft evasion and sentenced to five years in prison. Instead of complaining, he fought the conviction all the way to the United States Supreme Court and had it reversed by an 8-0 vote.

In his first big fight after the ban was lifted, a rusty MA took a legendary left hook to the jaw from the great Joe Frazier, then the heavyweight world champion, that sent him to the canvas. While this shot would have knocked out most heavyweights, MA got up and fought to the end. Joe Frazier won by decision. For the record, MA beat Smokin’ Joe in a rematch and then again in the greatest prize fight of all time, The Thrilla in Manila. Both fighters went toe to toe for 14 rounds until Joe Fraziers’ Hall of Fame trainer, Eddie Futch, refused to allow his fighter out for the 15th round. (Historical note: because of ring deaths and damage caused by late round cumulative punishment, title fights today are limited to 12 rounds.) Ali remarked that the fight was the closest thing to dying he knew of.

As he was such a big part of my life and I loved him so much, I could go on and on about “Ali, Ali, Ali.” If I had to choose one word to describe him, it would be: COURAGEOUS.

RIP, The Greatest. Float like a butterfly….

********************************

Contact us toll free at 866-785-GALE or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // The Case Against Jeb Bush

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:59:41 GMT

Lawyers know best!

Jeb’s running for president of the United States. He has a strong chance of winning.

People who care about the rights of families and individuals should be fearful of a Jeb Bush presidency.

For the next two years, millions of dollars will be spent trying to shape Bush’s image in voters’ minds. Among the themes will be that he, like his brother before him George W. Bush was purported to be, is a compassionate conservative.Conservative he may be, although ultra conservative is more like it. Compassionate? Not even close.

Jeb Bush served as the 43rd Governor of my state (Florida) from 1999 to 2007. For lawyers who represent individuals and families, they are known as the “hell years.”

While political ads and speeches shape perceptions, a politician’s true character is revealed in the laws he is responsible for creating. Laws are where the rubber meets the road.

By that measurement, Jeb Bush is cold and calculating. Proof of this lies in his handling of Florida’s workers’ compensation system and medical malpractice laws, where power and profits were placed over people.

Florida’s workers’ compensation system was devised some 80 years ago to bring a fair balance between the rights of injured workers and employers. Each gained and lost rights for the greater good.

It remained that way until Jeb became governor. From day one, he and Florida’s right-wing legislature began dismantling the safety net constructed over many years for injured workers. Profit and greed were the motive. By the time Jeb left office eight years later, the system was a hollow shell for injured workers. It became so bad that in Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), Florida’s workers’ compensation system is compared unfavorably to those in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Red States all. (Because it would have been a silly exercise, the 1st DCA did not bother comparing Florida’s system against those in Blue States.) Jeb modeled Florida’s workers’ compensation system after the one installed by his big brother George in Texas when he was that state’s governor. All experts agree that the workers’ compensation systems in Texas and Florida are the most unfavorable in the nation for injured workers. That’s George and Jeb.

One of the most insidious methods Jeb employed to destroy the system was to limit the ability of injured workers to hire lawyers. His handiwork is presently under constitutional attack before the Florida Supreme Court in Castellanos v. Next Door Company, et al. The question before the court is whether Bush’s scheme, which limited the claimant’s attorney to a fee of $164.54 for 107.2 hours of legal work in successfully obtaining workers’ compensation benefits for his client, is constitutional. Here’s the certified question before the court:

WHETHER THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THIS CASE IS ADEQUATE, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE ACCESS TO COURTS, DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.

A ruling is expected by this summer. People in the know believe that the court will declare Jeb’s scheme unconstitutional.

It won’t be the first time a Jeb Bush law will be declared unconstitutional.

In McCall v. United States of America, a case involving a military veteran whose death was caused by medical negligence, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional Florida’s arbitrary caps on the amount of money juries can award to surviving family members for pain and suffering resulting from the loss of a loved one by medical malpractice. As the basis for its ruling, the court determined that the “evidence” provided to the Florida Legislature by then-Governor Bush’s Select Task Force on Healthcare Professional Liability Insurance (Task Force Report) (Jan. 29, 2003), was bogus. What Bush & Co. did was manufacture evidence to support desired outcomes. (Think Weapons of Mass Destruction.)

Be concerned, America. Be very concerned.

************************************************

Contact us toll free at 866-785-GALE or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Tort “Reform” (Deform) Endangers Us All

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 13:32:02 GMT

On December 31, 2014, an article published in the Business Section of the Miami Herald, illustrated with chilling clarity the dangers posed by so-called tort reform.

In a nutshell, “tort reform” is the movement supported by right-wing interest groups to block and limit recoveries in personal injury cases. The propaganda disseminated to support these efforts is that most lawsuits are frivolous. Huge sums of money and influence have been invested to make the public believe this nonsense. Sadly, the smear campaign has been successful.

That success spells danger to every member of our society.

The Miami Herald article describes how tort reform has prevented law firms from prosecuting claims against General Motors for accidents caused by defective ignition switches resulting in death and catastrophic injuries. By placing arbitrary caps on the amount of damages that can be awarded for injury or death, rather than allowing a jury to make the determination after considering the evidence, law firms cannot afford to prosecute the claims. Quite simply, the investment in time and money doesn’t make business sense.The tort deform movement is a national movement. Every state legislature has passed or has attempted to pass laws that limit the amount individuals can recover for their losses.

In my home state of Florida, the legislation has hit especially hard in the area of medical malpractice. Taking its lead from then-Governor Jeb Bush, the Florida Legislature enacted severe limitations on the amount victims can recover in medical malpractice cases. Thankfully, the Florida Supreme Court, in March, 2014, found one provision of the law, that dealing with wrongful death, unconstitutional. In essence, the court found that a task force formed by Jeb Bush fed the legislature bogus evidence to support the push for “reform.” In other words, Bush & Co. decided on an outcome, then created the “facts” to support its position. The Supreme Court decided that this was not kosher.

By limiting the ability of private attorneys to prosecute claims on behalf of aggrieved individuals, Big Business is able to operate with impunity. A business calculation is made that it costs less to pay arbitrarily limited damages than it does to make a product safer.

Without the arbitrary limits, in other words, if Big Business had to pay for the actual harm caused, the calculation would be just the opposite. It would be less costly for Big Business to make a product safer than to pay full freight on claims.

We, the People, should not be put at risk for the sake of profits.

People over Profits!

*********************************************************

Contact us toll free at 866-785-GALE or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com) for a free, confidential consultation to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Florida Evidence Law – Impeaching on Collateral Issue Impermissible

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Fri, 26 Dec 2014 17:24:07 GMT

Undermining a witness’ credibility can make the difference between winning or losing a case. A popular method of impeachment is by demonstrating differences in present and former testimony. This method is illustrated in this blog — Florida Personal Injury Law — No Substitute for Solid Pretrial Discovery

The right to impeachment is not unlimited. Generally, it is not permissible on collateral issues. See, e.g., New England Oyster House of N. Miami, Inc. v. Yuhas, 294 So.2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (holding, in action for injuries sustained by plaintiff when she tripped and fell on concrete curb and where plaintiff dropped claim for lost wages, trial court properly refused to permit defendants to impeach plaintiff’s credibility with statement in her deposition that she lied on her income tax returns); see also Foster v. State, 869 So.2d 743, 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“The test for determining whether a matter is collateral or irrelevant is whether the proposed testimony can be admitted for any purpose independent of the contradictions.”) (quotations omitted).

In the case discussed in the above cited blog, the defendant’s second deposition testimony concerning a key, relevant issue was diametrically different than it was in his first deposition, sworn answers to interrogatories, and responses to requests for admissions. If this witness takes the witness stand at trial, set for late January, 2015, and repeats his second deposition testimony, the court will not hold us back from challenging his credibility with prior statements. The court will not limit our attack because the inconsistent evidence concerns a relevant issue.

In contrast, the defendants in that same case will not be allowed to impeach our client, the Plaintiff, on a collateral issue. Our 78 year old client fell through a deck/dock under repair while strolling behind an acquaintance’s house at night. While the defendants failed to post warnings or barriers, they are blaming the accident on our client for having impaired vision. From past medical records that she provided to defendants, it was discovered that she had a laser procedure done on her eyes five years before the accident which she failed to mention in her deposition.While she didn’t mention it because she didn’t recall it — it was a minor procedure — defendants would nevertheless like to present it to the jury as a lack of credibility.

There’s only one problem for the defendants: the laser procedure had no affect whatsoever on our client’s visual acuity on the night of the accident. Two ophthalmologists deposed under oath in the case have said so. Hence, that our client failed to mention the procedure, for whatever reason, is irrelevant.

The Foster case illustrates my point.

In Foster, the appellant was convicted for leaving the scene of a crash with injuries. Foster asserted that the crash occurred because his brakes failed. An inspection of the brakes ascertained them to be functional. Over objection, an officer was allowed to testify with regard to the condition of the brakes. The trial court allowed the officer’s testimony “based on the rationale that the evidence went to Foster’s credibility.” Foster’s conviction was reversed and a new trial ordered. The court reasoned: “We conclude that reversal is required on this issue because Officer Stevens’ testimony was offered to impeach Foster’s credibility on a collateral issue: whether or not the brakes were a cause of the accident … the cause of the accident was not relevant to the crime charged, and the testimony impeaching Foster as to the cause of the accident could have swayed the jury to find Foster guilty for an improper reason.”

Just as in Foster, where the function of the defendant’s brakes had no relevance to the crime for which he was charged, the laser procedure done four years before the accident is entirely irrelevant to our client’s visual acuity on the night of the accident. As such, attempting to impeach our client for failing to mention the procedure is impermissible.

*********************************************************

Contact us toll free at 866-785-GALE or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com) for a free, confidential consultation to learn your legal rights.

Tort “Deform” Perpetrated by Right Wing to Deny Individuals of Constitutional Rights

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 12:23:36 GMT

Corporate America has campaigned for more than thirty years to brainwash average people into believing that America’s civil justice system is a bad thing. Sadly, the campaign has worked, fostering views contrary to one of the most fundamental principle on which America was founded: that the courts are to be a neutral forum in which the small can take on the big. Reference: We the People.

The purpose of this blog is to build a resistance to the propaganda through education. Ignorance is not bliss when basic civil rights hang in the balance.

What is the civil justice system? It is the system individuals and corporations use for redressing alleged wrongs. The fundamental components of the system are judges, juries, and lawyers.

What is a “tort”? A tort is harm caused intentionally or by negligence. The best known torts involve personal injuries, but can include other types of damages. The aggrieved party, the Plaintiff, sues the Defendant, for monetary damages.

Aren’t these personal injury or “tort” lawsuits flooding the courts? No. Tort cases make up only 6 percent of the entire civil court caseload and they are decreasing. The National Center for State Courts shows a 21 percent decline in tort filings from 1996 to 2005. Richard LaFountain et al., Examining the Work of State Courts: A National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project (National Center for State Courts 2009) at 1, 2. (The Court Statistics Project is a joint project of the Conference of State Court Administrators, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for State Courts.)

Only 10 percent of injured Americans ever file a claim for compensation, which includes informal demands and insurance claims. Only two percent file lawsuits. David A. Hyman and Charles Silver, “Medical Malpractice Litigation and Tort Reform: It’s the Incentives, Stupid,”59 Vand. L. Rev. 1085, 1089 (May 2006) (citing Thomas F. Burke, Lawyers, Lawsuits, and Legal Rights: The Battle over Litigation in American Society 3 (2002));Rand Institute for Civil Justice, Compensation for Accidental Injuries in the United States (1991).
Academics generally concede there is no evidence that “frivolous” lawsuits are a problem.
In 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans die each year (and 300,000 are injured) due to avoidable medical errors in hospitals alone. Yet eight times as many patients are injured as ever file a claim; 16 times as many suffer injuries as receive any compensation. The Harvard School of Public Health closely examined 1,452 closed claims and concluded that “[p]ortraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown.” David M. Studdert et al., “Claims, Errors, and Compensation Payments in Medical Malpractice Litigation,” New England Journal of Medicine, May 11, 2006. The study found that most injuries resulting in claims were caused by medical error, and that those that weren’t were, nevertheless, not “frivolous” claims.
In 2005, tort jury and bench trials together constituted 1.3 percent of all general civil dispositions in 79 jurisdictions reporting and 3.5 percent of all tort dispositions in 104 jurisdictions reporting.

What is “tort reform”? This term refers to laws that benefit the corporate sector. These laws make it more difficult for injured people to sue in civil court, or limit the power of judges and juries to make decisions in tort cases. (See these examples: 2010 Florida Legislature Further Curtails the Rights of Medical Malpractice Victims; Vehicle Owners – Other Than Rental Agencies – Vicariously Liable Under Florida Law.)

But isn’t it easy to “win” money in a lawsuit by forcing the other side (usually an insurance company) to settle? No. Insurance companies do not settle frivolous cases. For example, Duke University Law Professor Neil Vidmar found in his research: “In interviews with liability insurers that I undertook in North Carolina and other states, the most consistent theme from them was: ‘We do not settle frivolous cases!’ The insurers indicated that there are minor exceptions, but their policy on frivolous cases was based on the belief that if they ever begin to settle cases just to make them go away, their credibility will be destroyed and this will encourage more litigation.”But what about the McDonald’s coffee case? Wasn’t that frivolous and didn’t that woman get millions of dollar for spilling hot coffee on herself? No. The facts of that case are: Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was trying to remove the lid on her coffee when it tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. McDonald’s sold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees even though the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees. When Ms. Liebeck was burned by the coffee, McDonald’s coffee had already burned more than 700 people, including infants. Liebeck received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous and willful conduct. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties settled confidentially for less. (See these blogs: “Hot Coffee” – HBO to Air Documentary Exposing the McDonald’s Coffee Case Lies; The Truth About the McDonalds Coffee Spill Case – Fallacy Debunked.)

Corporate America fears the civil justice system. To keep it in check, it engages in a systematic campaign to distort American thought. The truth is of little regard in this campaign. Corporate America has largely succeeded in this insidious and dangerous campaign, yet refuses to let up as it moves in for the kill. If We the People are not careful, We the People will find ourselves effectively barred from America’s courthouses, unable to seek redress against insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers.

If you think Corporate America treats the public with impunity now, when We the People still have some tools at our disposal, imagine a world in which Corporate America is beyond the reach of civil accountability.

Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), is turning over in his grave.

*******************************************

Relief from Fault in Florida: Exculpatory Clauses and Indemnity Agreements — Similar but Different Creatures

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:47:05 GMT

Florida entities seek advance protection from their own negligence in two ways: exculpatory clauses and indemnity agreements.

An exculpatory clause purports to deny an injured party the right to recover damages from a person negligently causing his injury. Kitchens of the Oceans, Inc. v. McGladrey & Pullen LLP, 832 So.2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

An indemnity agreement arises when one individual takes on the obligation to pay for any liability, loss or damage that has been or might be incurred by another individual. Free Legal Dictionary. Some indemnity agreements purport to indemnify a party against its own wrongful acts.

Exculpatory clauses and indemnity agreements which attempt to indemnify a party against its own wrongful acts are viewed with disfavor in Florida. Since both are looked upon with disfavor by the courts, they are enforceable only where and to the extent that the intention to be relieved from liability was made clear and unequivocal and the wording must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what is at stake. Exculpatory clauses: Gayon v. Bally’s Total Fitness Corp., 802 So.2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Raveson v. Walt Disney World Co., 793 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Indemnity agreements: Cox Cable v. Gulf Power, 591 So.2d 627 (Fla. 1992); Charles Poe Masonry, Inc. v. Spring Lock Scaffolding, 374 So.2d 487 (1979); University Plaza Shopping Center, Inc. v. Stewart, 272 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1973); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Elmore, 189 So.2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); and Nat Harrison Associates, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 162 So.2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).

Our law firm is currently in the early stages of a case involving personal injuries and an indemnity agreement, but no exculpatory clause. Our catastrophically injured client was an independent contractor pulling large trailers owned by a Florida company. He was injured through the negligent maintenance of the trailer by the Florida company. He and the company have in place an agreement calling for our client to indemnify the company for injuries resulting from its fault.

The legal question is whether the indemnity agreement effectively precludes our client from recovering for his losses from the company. We believe that the answer is No. In our considered opinion, it would take an exculpatory clause, rather than an indemnity agreement, to deny our client the right to recover damages from the company for negligently causing his injuries.Pre-injury releases, or exculpatory clauses, are used frequently in connection with activities considered risky, such as go-cart and off-road racing, high school football, horseback riding, and cheerleading, but also for commonplace activities such as Disney World rides and school outings.

Because of their disfavor with the courts, exculpatory clauses will be strictly construed against the party seeking to avoid liability. Requirements for enforceability include:

The language must be clear and unambiguous.
The intent to limit liability must be expressed in clear and unequivocal terms.
The waiver must clearly state that it releases the party from liability for his own negligence (although this requirement is not strictly followed by Florida’s 5th DCA).

Other factors weighing on enforceability include:

Does the release give the plaintiff the option to purchase insurance or pay additional fees to cover loss, injury or damage?
Is exculpatory language in different color or typeset than other provisions of the agreement?
Is the release signed, dated, and witnessed?

Certain types of exculpatory clauses are prohibited as being against public policy. They include: (a) those that attempt to avoid liability for gross negligence or intentional torts; (b) those that release or waive a party from liability for the breach of a positive statutory duty designed to protect the well-being of the person executing the release; and (c) attempting to shorten the time within which legal proceedings must be initiated, also known as a statute of limitations. (See Florida Statute 95.11.)

***************************************

Contact us toll free at 866-785-GALE or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com) for a free, confidential consultation to learn your legal rights.

Florida’s Third DCA Limits Personal Injury Duty Standard for Rental Car Companies

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:02:32 GMT

Our client was a passenger in a Dodge Dakota truck owned and leased by Enterprise Leasing Company, when it overturned two to three times on the highway at high speed. The driver, who had rented the truck from Enterprise, had fallen asleep at the wheel. Our severely injured client was airlifted to Shands Hospital, in Gainesville, Florida.

We filed suit against the uninsured driver and Enterprise. We alleged that Enterprise negligently entrusted its truck to the driver. The facts forming the basis of this allegation against Enterprise:

The driver had a suspended Florida drivers license at the time of the lease transaction. While the driver presented to the Enterprise agent what appeared to be a facially valid Texas drivers license, it is unlawful to operate a vehicle in Florida when that driver has a suspended license in any state. Enterprise failed to perform a simple and inexpensive computer search to determine if the driver had a suspended license.
The credit card the driver presented to the Enterprise agent was rejected. Enterprise nevertheless rented the vehicle, in violation of its own policies and procedures, which called for the production of other forms of proof of personal responsibility.

Once upon a time, rental car companies could be held vicariously liable for injuries caused by the negligent operation of their vehicles by authorized drivers. (Whether vicarious liability applied in a state was a matter of state law. Florida is a vicarious liability state. Vicarious liability has been recognized in Florida since 1920. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920). Under this doctrine, a vehicle owner is liable without fault for damages caused by the negligent operation of his or her vehicle by a consensual driver.) As to rental agencies, this standard ended in 2005, when a Republican Congress, at the urging of then-President George Bush, passed the so-called Graves Amendment. The Graves Amendment substituted federal law for state law, providing blanket immunity to rental companies from vicarious liability. (So much for states’ rights!)

While the Graves Amendment relieved rental companies from vicarious liability, it allowed to remain in place actions against agencies for negligent entrustment. The distinguishing feature of negligent entrustment from vicarious liability is that the owner is independently at fault in granting consensual use of the vehicle. Florida courts consistently hold that one who negligently entrusts a car to someone is liable for damages flowing from the misuse of that car. Clooney v. Geetting, 352 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977) (“we see no reason why this theory is not available to claimants injured in automobile accidents in this state.”) The Florida Supreme Court long ago held that because the use of a dangerous instrumentality involves such a high degree of risk of serious injury or death, the highest degree of care is required. Skinner v. Ochiltree, 5 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1941).

Enterprise denied that it negligently entrusted its vehicle to the at-fault driver. Enterprise argued that section 322.38, Florida Statutes, limited the scope of its duty to our client, that it had no responsibility to investigate the status of the driver’s driver’s license beyond “facial validity,” contending that one’s driving record or background should not influence its decision to rent one a car, and that a declined credit card is irrelevant to a negligent entrustment claim under section 322.38 as a matter of law. (We presented evidence that poor credit is an indicia of risk recognized by rental agencies and insurance companies.) The trial court agreed with Enterprise, granting summary judgment in its favor.We appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal. On November 27, 2013, the Third filed its per curiam affirmance of the lower court’s ruling. We are hoping the Third District certifies the issue to the Florida Supreme Court as being of great public importance. However, in the words of our appellate attorney, Roy Wasson, “We have an uphill battle.” The courts around the country are starting to limit the “negligence” exception to negligent maintenance that causes the crash. The Third District held in Rivers v. Hertz Corp., 121 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), that the statute in question only requires Hertz to examine the facially valid driver’s license and not to investigate the status of that license to determine whether or not it was suspended.

Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes vicarious responsibility upon the owner or other possessor of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts it to another for any subsequent negligent operation which injures a member of the traveling public. Jackson v. Hertz Corporation, 590 So.2d 929, 937. See Kraemer v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 572 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1990); Susco Car Rental Sys. v. Leonard, 112 So.2d 832 (Fla. 1959); Lynch v. Walker, 159 Fla. 188, 31 So.2d 268 (1947); Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920); Anderson v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 73 Fla. 432, 74 So. 975 (1917).The dangerous instrumentality doctrine is a public safety policy. It’s purpose is to encourage vehicle owners to be careful in allowing others to use their motor vehicles. It should apply to an industry that makes billions of dollars a year just as it applies to individuals. If you agree, tell your legislators.

Florida Statute 322.28 – Safe Harbor or Bare Minimum for Rental Car Agencies?

***************************************

Contact us toll free at 866-785-GALE or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com) for a free, confidential consultation to learn your legal rights.