South Florida Injury Law Blog

Imagine flying on a commercial airliner. A couple hours into the flight, your jet begins to lose pressure and suddenly descends so quickly that your ears ache. Oxygen masks release from overhead. You're told to put one on and brace for impact. The passengers around you are crying, screaming, and praying. Your heart races, and you wonder if everything might end in one instant.

The plane's wheels hit the ground with a strong thud. While the landing is violent, everyone on board seems to be okay. Applause erupts in the passengers' cabin as everyone breathes a huge sigh of relief. You give the pilot a strong handshake and pat on the back before you exit, but you're still shaken after this traumatic close call. After deplaning, your airline offers you a meal, helps you to get to your final destination, and gives you a $500 credit to use on your next flight.

Hundreds of airplane passengers have this experience every year. While many individuals walk away without serious psychological or emotional trauma, others are permanently scarred and may face severe anxiety for years to come. A recent article in USA Today points out that many passengers do not think that dinner and a $500 gift certificate is adequate compensation for severe emotional trauma.

After the ValuJet flight 592 crash of 1995, Congress passed the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance (ADFA) Act of 1996. Immediately after a commercial airline crash in the United States resulting in at least one death, the ADFA Act requires the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board to designate an independent nonprofit organization to be responsible "for coordinating the emotional care and support of the families of passengers involved in the accident." The airline is responsible for reimbursing the nonprofit organization for funds expended. In short, the ADFA Act recognizes that plane crashes are traumatic events, and passengers on board may need some counseling afterward.

"Close calls" are not addressed by the ADFA Act, so airlines are not legally obligated to provide counseling services to passengers who are involved in non-fatal emergency landings. Sometimes airlines choose to do so, but the law does not actually require it. For example, US Airways sent its family assistance team to provide counseling to passengers on board the highly publicized 2009 emergency landing on the Hudson River.

Continue reading "Fort Lauderdale Accident Attorneys Comment on Federal Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act" »

Three years ago, a twenty-seven-year-old Florida woman was killed after a truck driver ran a red light. The post-accident investigation revealed that the truck driver ran the red light because he was distracted and texting while driving. Since the accident, the woman's family has pushed for a statewide texting-while-driving ban. The Florida Senate considered multiple bills that would prohibit texting while driving, but the Senate failed to pass a texting-while-driving law.

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, about 20% of all automobile crashes resulting in injury involve reports of distracted driving. Texting while driving is particularly worrisome because it involves visual, manual, and cognitive distractions. Texting drivers take their eyes off of the road, their hands off of the steering wheel, and their mind off of driving.

In 2011, members of the Florida Senate will again attempt to pass a texting-while-driving ban. If the Senate succeeds and passes a texting law, that law could have an important impact on the legal landscape of texting-while-driving civil lawsuits.

Most automobile accident lawsuits involve the legal theory of negligence. Simply put, in order to successfully win a lawsuit based on the opposing party's negligent driving, the plaintiff must submit evidence to prove that the defendant did not drive reasonably.

A law that bans texting while driving could make it a bit easier to win civil lawsuits against texting drivers. When a safety statute is on the books, like a texting-while-driving ban, the legal theory "negligence per se" often comes into play. Florida follows the negligence per se doctrine, which says that when a defendant violates a safety statute, and that safety statute was designed to prevent the type of harm that actually occurred and the class of plaintiffs that was actually injured, then the court will find that the defendant was actually negligent. For example, in civil drunk driving accident cases, once a plaintiff proves that a defendant violated the state's laws on intoxicated driving, then that fact will usually be enough to show that the defendant was negligent.

Continue reading "Florida Lawmakers Consider Texting-While-Driving Ban" »