At the wrongful death trial, the plaintiffs argued that Shands was negligent in hiring and supervising O’Quinn. A competent background check would have revealed his history of stealing drugs. In addition, Shands was informed by its employees that O’Quinn was stealing drugs and did not immediately dismiss him. Shands accepted his two weeks’ notice but did not restrict his access to the drugs.

Unfortunately, in that time, O’Quinn murdered Herndon with drugs stolen from Shands. O’Quinn had become infatuated with Herndon and injected her with the deadly drugs when she told him she was engaged to be married.

On appeal, the court ruled that a legal duty did exist because (1) Shands knew or should have know that the unsupervised release of hazardous, controlled drugs was dangerous; (2) a reasonable hospital would recognize that not implementing controls to keep dangerous drugs secure and supervised would expose the public to unreasonable risk of harm; and (3) Mischelle Herndon’s death was a foreseeable result of Shands negligent hiring and supervising of O’Quinn.

Though Shands did not know O’Quinn to have a violent history, the court ruled that his history of stealing drugs was enough to make harm to the public foreseeable to Shands in light of the hospital’s failure to secure its dangerous drugs.

The court explained that a legal duty exists where a general threat of harm to others exists. The threat of harm does not need to be specific to create a legal duty to protect.

“A common law duty is recognized, regardless of intervening criminal conduct, when a person’s actions ‘create “a foreseeable zone of risk” posing a general threat of harm to others.’… Moreover… the essence of the zone of risk is not the foreseeability of the specific injury that occurred, but whether the zone of risk poses a general threat of harm to others.’ See Hewitt v. Avis Rent-a-Car, 912 So.2d 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)”

Art Zimmet is an injury lawyer who will tell you something most lawyers won’t. If you’ve been injured by the negligence of another, you might not need a lawyer. But before you sign any forms, speak with an insurance company or hire a lawyer, get the free books and information available at my Florida medical malpractice lawyer website. Also visit my Florida child injury lawyer blog  for Florida child injury legal resources. Both sites are full of valuable information and you won’t be disappointed.

Florida’s evidence code can be quite restrictive in the types of out of court statements it allows the jury to hear. In fact, the rule is that no witness can testify to the jury about an out of court statement unless that statement can be shown to be reliable. Only in certain circumstances are juries allowed to hear  out of court statements.

Those exceptions to the rule are very specific in their requirements. When it comes to statements made by parties to a lawsuit however, the jury is allowed to hear almost any out of court statement made by that person if it is offered against that party.

This rule is called the party admission. The rule’s name can be confusing to attorneys because the party (defendant or plaintiff) need not actually admit anything. The rule states that a parties own statement is admissible if it is offered against them. Interestingly, the party cannot admit their own out of court statement, but the party’s opponent can use their own such statements against them.

Another area of confusion among lawyers is whether or not the statement must be against the party’s interest to be admissible. The answer is that it need not. Even if a statement is in the party’s interest, it can be used against that person by his opponent.

If you are ever unfortunate enough to find yourself in a situation where you think you may end up in court, say as little as possible. Even things you think will help you can be used against you. Whether you’ve been in a car accident in Daytona Beach, whether your child has been injured at day care, or your parent has been injure in a nursing home, remember, anything you, your child or your parent say can be used against you.

Alice Bryant did just that after her auto accident caused damage to her vehicle and personal injury. However, the trial judge threw out her personal injury lawsuit because she had first obtained a judgment for the property damage incurred in the wreck that caused the personal injury.

Other Florida courts have noted that bringing a suit for both property and personal injury damages is more difficult than bringing them separately, but nevertheless, Florida law requires all damages resulting from a single incident to be litigated in a single lawsuit, even when it involves a car accident.

For more information about Florida traffic injury law, visit this Florida personal injury lawyer resource page.

The insurance company is entitled to some of the records, but I want to be the one who controls and monitors their access to the records. I want to know which records they have so I won’t be surprised. I want to know when they gain access to them. I want to be able to tell them that the law does not allow them access to certain records that are irrelevant to the case at hand.

So, once again, don’t sign any insurance company forms before you talk to a Florida injury lawyer. In addition, some cases might not even require a lawyer, but before you make a move, you should order one of my free books on Florida medical malpractice or accident cases.