South Florida Injury Law Blog

In recent years, a number of homeowners in South Florida have filed suit against the manufacturers of allegedly contaminated drywall containing toxins that destroy infrastructure, emit foul odors and cause breathing problems. Now, they're setting their sights on the company's Florida-based distributor.

Earlier this month, Samia Aziz, a Miami resident, filed an action in Miami-Dade Circuit Court against local company Banner Supply Co., alleging that the company continued to distribute toxic drywall despite knowing that the product was defective and even conspired with the manufacturer to keep the information under wraps.

Shortly after moving into her home in south Miami-Dade County, Aziz discovered that the drywall inside emitted odors, corroded the plumbing and electrical wiring and damaged electronic equipment in the home. As a result, she and her mother were forced to find another place to live.

The Aziz suit follows after several South Florida homeowners filed actions in Miami-Dade Circuit Court against German-based drywall manufacturing company Knauf and its Chinese outpost Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co. In addition to physical damage to their homes, many plaintiffs say that the drywall emits toxic sulfur gases causing a variety of respiratory problems. For its part, Knauf claims that it has acted in good faith and is working to "remediate" damaged homes.

Banner bought more than a million sheets of Chinese drywall from Knauf. According to The Miami Herald's Toluse Olorunnipa, the lawsuit is one of thousands filed against Banner and alleges that company directors had known that the drywall was defective since 2006. The Herald describes that the suit further alleges that the directors conspired with the manufacturer to conceal the problem from homeowners.

Continue reading "South Florida Homeowners Sue Chinese Drywall Makers and Distributors for Personal Injury, Other Damages" »

A new theme park has come to the Sunshine State and, like the others already attracting millions of visitors to Florida each year, its rides will not be inspected by state security officials.

Earlier this month, the state announced that Legoland, the 50-ride lego-themed family park that opened in Winter Park in mid-October, will not be inspected because it falls under an exemption to Florida ride safety rules that, according to the Orlando Sentinel, was initially enacted for mega-theme parks like Disney World. Specifically, theme parks with 1,000 or more employees are exempted from Florida laws that require a permit and state inspections in order to operate rides, including at fairs and carnivals.

As of late September, Legoland had 994 employees under contract and six more expected to be brought on before the grand opening. If the number dips below 1,000, the permitting and inspection regulations kick in.

Florida is home to eight of the biggest theme parks in the U.S. The Sentinel's Jason Garcia and Sara K. Clarke report that "[t]he move makes Legoland parent company Merlin Entertainments Group the fourth park owner in Florida to operate free of state ride-safety regulation. The others are the Walt Disney Co.; NBC Universal, which owns Universal Orlando and Wet 'n Wild; and SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, which owns SeaWorld Orlando and Busch Gardens Tampa Bay."

Despite the exemption, these parks must follow certain guidelines aimed at avoiding personal injuries. For example, they are required to employ full-time, in-house safety inspectors and annually certify to the state that each of their rides has been inspected. They also have to report injuries that occur on their rides to the state. However, as the Sentinel points out, the parks must report only those injuries that result in an immediate hospital stay of more than 24 hours.

Continue reading "Like Others, New Legoland Theme Park Rides Won't be Inspected by Florida Safety Officials" »

Anyone who's ever worked on a construction site knows that the work of building, clearing, excavating and the like can be very dangerous. That's why Florida law requires contracting companies to obtain workers' compensation insurance for each of their onsite employees. As an incentive to obtain the proper coverage, however, the law also makes complying companies immune from personal injury liability through all other legal channels for injuries stemming from onsite accidents. But, as the Fifth District Court of Appeal explains in Lovering v. Nickerson, the doctrine of workers' compensation immunity's applicability to a specific accident depends on whether the person injured was an "employee" at the time.

Plaintiff Homer Lovering sued defendants Middlesex Corporation (his employer) and Leslie Nickerson (a Middlesex employee) for injuries he sustained while working for Middlesex as a heavy equipment operator on a road project in which workers removed concrete barriers. Specifically, Plaintiff was struck by a large concrete barrier as it was being loaded onto the flatbed of the tractor trailer truck that he was driving. As a result of his injuries, both of Plaintiff's legs were amputated. Defendant Nickerson was operating a fork lift used to load the barrier at the time of the accident.

The trial court hearing Plaintiff's complaint granted summary judgment to Defendants, finding that because Plaintiff was a Middlesex employee at the time of the accident, Defendants are immune from liability for the injuries pursuant to the Florida Workers' Compensation Act (the Act). The statute provides that contractor company working on a construction site must provide workers' compensation of each if its employees. In turn, the contractor receives immunity from negligence liability for injuries suffered by any employee at the site. The statute's mandatory coverage and immunity, however, apply only to so called "statutory employees," which in the construction context are defined as an independent contractor performing services in - or a sole proprietor engaged in - "the construction industry." The industry, for statutory purposes, encompasses "for-profit activities involving any building, clearing, filling, excavation, or substantial improvement in the size or use of any structure or the appearance of any land."

In reversing the trial court's decision, the Fifth District ruled that the Act does not bar Plaintiff from suing for personal injuries in this matter because was not working or performing services in the "construction industry" at the time of the injury and, therefore, is not an employee covered by the Act.

Negligence is the most common theory of recovery for persons injured in any type of accident, including construction accidents as well as car, motorcycle and boat accidents and incidents of medical malpractice. In order for a plaintiff to successfully assert that a defendant was negligent, he or she must show that: 1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a "duty of care"; 2) the defendant breached the "duty of care"; 3) the plaintiff was injured; and 4) the breach caused the plaintiff's injury.

Continue reading "Florida Construction Accident Injuries: Workers' Compensation and Personal Injury Lawsuits - Lovering v. Nickerson" »

Earlier this month Atlanta-based home furnishings manufacturer Ballard Designs announced that it was recalling more than 2,500 step stools due to concerns that the stools are unsteady. While the defective products appear to have caused only a few minor injuries, the incident is a good reminder to consumers to be aware of their rights in the event they are injured by a malfunctioning commercial product.

The recall was initiated when it was discovered that plastic tabs on the feet of the step stools may make the stools unstable, creating a fall hazard to consumers who attempt to use them. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that at least two incidents have occurred in which a consumer fell from one of the Ballard Designs stools, resulting in minor injuries.

According to a press release from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the recalled product is a black or white wooden "Stafford" step stool. "Ballard Designs" is printed on a sticker under the bottom of the step along with the phrase "Made in China." The product was sold in Ballard Design stores in Florida, Georgia and Ohio, as well as in catalogs, on the company's website and through hsn.com from July 2009 through May 2011.

In announcing the recall, the CPSC, the federal agency that monitors the safety of a broad range of products from toys to power tools, warned that "[c]onsumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed."

Consumers purchase products with the implied expectation that those products will not injure the consumer in an unpredictable way. Unfortunately, many defective products prove to be unfit and unsafe for their intended use and many injure people before being forced off the shelves by either the manufacturer or the CPSC. Injuries can range from minor bumps and bruises to serious brain and spinal damage. In recent years, for example, many South Florida homeowners have sued drywall manufacturers, claiming that dry wall installed in their homes emits a dangerous amount of sulfur gases causing serious respiratory problems.

Continue reading "Defective Product Recalls and Florida Personal Injury Law " »