In a rear end car accident, Florida law imposes a presumption that the rear driver is at fault. This presumption can be overcome with sufficient evidence. If the rear driver can show that the lead driver stopped or changed lanes abruptly or arbitrarily in a place that a reasonable person would not expect them to, then Florida law no longer presumes the rear driver to be negligent.

If the lead driver’s vehicle is stopped illegally, then Florida law no longer presumes the rear driver to be negligent.

Lastly, if the rear driver in the wreck can show that his or her car suffered from a mechanical failure like sudden brake failure (and the mechanical failure is not the fault of the rear driver) then Florida law no longer presumes the rear driver to be negligent.

These exceptions to the rear driver negligence presumption played an important role in a recent Florida wrongful death lawsuit involving a highway wreck. The case almost got thrown out of court until a judge ruled that the plaintiff (who represented the rear driver) presented enough evidence of the first exception.

Without evidence that the lead driver of a tractor trailer abruptly changed lanes and decelerated, the rear driver would have been presumed to be the negligent party and the case would likely have been thrown out of court.

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.

That question raises several interesting topics about the burden of proof in civil jury trials. First of all, there is no such requirement anywhere in the legal world that requires a plaintiff or prosecutor to prove the case beyond a shadow of a doubt. That phrase is a fictional creation. The most difficult burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt” and is used only in criminal proceedings. So unless the person who injured you is also charged criminally, that person will not face the “reasonable doubt standard.”

If your Florida injury case reaches trial, regardless of whether it is in Orlando, Jacksonville or Daytona Beach, we will only be required to prove your case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” That is the burden of proof in civil jury trials. We will be successful in proving the case if the jury decides that it is “more probable than not” that your injury was caused by a liable defendant.

The preponderance of evidence standard is the only burden of proof that is widely accepted as being quantifiable. The standard is satisfied if there is a greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true.

The last of the three standards for conviction is “clear and convincing evidence.” This standard is a more difficult burden to prove than a “preponderance of the evidence.” It is also much less commonly used – for example in habeas corpus and capital punishment cases.

To prevail, a jury must be convinced that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is true. See how that’s different than the preponderance of the evidence burden? One is more likely than not while the other is substantially more likely than not. That means it’s substantially more difficult to prove that burden than the preponderance of the evidence burden (and even more difficult to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt).

These are standards for conviction. Other legal standards exist as well such as probable cause, but that deals with search and seizure law and is inapplicable to civil injury trials.

So in summary, if you’ve been injured anywhere in Florida, be it Orange City, Deltona, Port Orange or Ponte Vedra, and you file a civil claim, we’ll have to prove your case by a preponderance of the evidence.

James Harvey Tipler had earlier pled guilty to solicitation to prostitution in his criminal case. Tipler agreed to let his client, an 18-year-old woman,  reduce her $2,300 fee for her assault case.

Every time he had sex with her, Tipler would reduce his fee $200. Every time she arranged for another girl to have sex with him, Tipler would reduce her fee by $400.

Tipler also altered evidence in the case against him and persuaded a witness to falsify testimony.

As if our reputation wasn’t already bad enough.

This most recent Daytona interstate accident occurred yesterday on I-95. Pamela Reid of Palm Coast actually caused two separate accidents. The first occurred on U.S. 1 and no one was hurt. That was just shortly before she caused the fatal I-95 crash.

Reid crossed the median on I-95 and crashed head-on into a 2003 Chevy. The wreck spun the car and caused it to roll, ejecting both occupants. Bruce Castle, 42, of Port Orange was killed and Trevor Luce, 34, of Palm Coast was critically injured. Reid was seriously injured.

An investigation is ongoing and charges are pending. Troopers believe Reid was under the influence of alcohol when the crashes occurred.

If Reid does not have insurance or does not have adequate insurance, I pray that Luce has under/uninsured motorist coverage or he will be looking at a hefty bill once he recovers. More people are forced into bankruptcy from medical bills than any other reason. The right insurance coverage can save you from the same fate.

I wish Luce a speedy recovery, and hope he has adequate insurance. If not, there may be one way he can recover from Reid. See my previous blog  Tragic Highway Death Sober Reminder of Importance of Underinsured Motorist Coverage to learn more.

Decide for yourself if that is the situation in the following instance. Some will surely say yes, some will surely say no.  Let’s start with the simple rule. In civil proceedings, plaintiffs may not be compensated more than once for the same injury. This is regardless of whether multiple perpetrators caused the damage.

For example, one person is killed by two people. The death would not have occured but for the actions of BOTH people. That is, one perpetrator’s actions alone would not have been enough to cause death. The actions of both perpetrators were necessary to cause death. Therefore, both perpetratrors are culpable for the death.

Now what happens if the victim’s wife sues both perpetrators in civil court and receives $100,000 from Perp 1 to compensate them for the loss of her husband?  Well, depending on the facts of the case, the wife may not be able to find a lawyer willing to represent her in her case against Perp 2.

It all depends on the lawyer’s opinion of what kind of monetary value a jury will place on the husband’s life. If the lawyer thinks a jury will say the husband’s life was worth $1 million, then the lawyer will take the case. However, depending on the lawyer, the lower the value the jury will give to the husband’s life, the less likely any lawyer will agree to represent the wife.

This is because of the one compensation rule. The wife cannot be compensated more than once for the loss of her husband. This means that if the wife sued Perp 2, the case went to trial and a jury said that Perp 2 was liable for the husband’s death and that the husband’s life was worth $100,000, then the wife would not receive any money from Perp 2 and Perp 2 would go unpunished.