Source: http://www.michaelstewartlaw.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:32:46+00:00

Document:
to possession of the property.
note states the interest rate, repayment schedule, and other terms.
by both parties, amongst other things.
for a borrower to achieve.
borrower to pay off the full loan early, without penalty.
There are a variety of different types of ways to pay your mortgage.
for the term of the loan, such as for 30 years.
at the end of the term – known as a balloon payment.
interest rate falls, the borrower’s payments are less.
and the promissory note will likely be attached to the Complaint.
of the amounts owed to the lender under what is called Discovery.
be used in its defense of the case.
deficiency judgment. This is known as a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
known as a deed for lease.
Although cats and dogs may seem like”man’s best friend” and harmless, these animals do sometimes attack people. It is very important from a legal standpoint to keep your pet under control and from attacking another person. Animal attacks can lead to physical and mental injuries to the person attacked.
Another common problem associated with animal bites is infection. These bites often occur to the hands, arms and legs where there are many blood vessels near the skin. These bites into the blood vessels can spread bacteria from the animal’s mouth into your bloodstream causing infection and/or making you very sick.
One potentially and common dangerous infection is rabies, which can be deadly to the human victim if allowed to spread. It is also important that pet owners properly vaccinate their pets against rabies so that they cannot spread it to humans, even if the pet did bite.
Florida Follow a concept of “strict liability for dog bites, meaning that the owner is strictly liable for any bites caused by their pet.
The “Bad Dog” Exception to Liability Under Fla. Stat.
The Florida dog bite statute, 767.04, has an exception that states that there is no liability under the statute if the dog bite victim is 6 years of age or older, the bite occurred on the dog owner’s premises, and those premises contain a conspicuously posted sign stating the phrase “Bad Dog.” The exception applies if the sign says “Beware of Dog.” Romfh v. Berman, 56 So.2d 127 (Fla. 1951). The sign must be in a prominent place and easily readable, so as to give actual notice of the risk of bite to the victim. Carroll v. Moxley, 241 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1970). If the victim is too young to read the sign, then the exception does not apply. Flick v. Malino, 356 So.2d 904 (Fla. Court of Appeal, 1978).
Two issues often come about when a child is the victim of a dog bite.
First is the issue of comparative negligence, when the child’s acts/conduct provoked the dog, thus the child being a cause of the accident and reducing the recovery. Florida has found that a child under 6 years old is presumed to be incapable of committing such negligence. Swindell v. Hellkamp, 242 So.2d 708 (Fla. 1970). When the child is 6 years or older, the jury decides whether the child was capable of appreciating the danger and being able to avoid the danger. Turner v. Seegar, 151 Fla. 643, 10 So.2d 320 (1942).
The second issue is whether the injured child’s recovery should be reduced by a parent failing to adequately supervise the child, thus making the parent a cause of the accident. The jury is entitled to apportion fault to the parent, even where the parent is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Y.H. Investments, Inc., v. Godales, 690 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1997).
A landlord has a duty to protect its tenants when landlord has knowledge of a vicious dog on the premises. The Florida 4th DCA stated: A landlord who recognizes and assumes the duty to protect co-tenants from dangerous propensities of a tenant’s pet is required to undertake reasonable precautions to protect co-tenants from reasonably foreseeable injury occasioned thereby.” White v. Whitworth, 509 So. 2d 378, 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); see also Vasquez v. Lopez, 509 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (holding that landlord may be liable for tenant’s dog if landlord knows dog is vicious and has sufficient control of premises to protect plaintiff).
When a lease agreement specifically prohibits particular breeds of dogs, the landlord can be liable if these rules are not enforces knowing one of these breed are on the premises. In Ramirez v. M.L. Management Co., Inc., 920 So.2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), the landlord was aware that a tenant’s pit bulls had threatened other persons on the premises, but the landlord did nothing to remedy the situation. When the dogs attacked a child on a neighboring property, the landlord was held liable.
There might not be liability where the dog bite victim is a trespasser or exceeded their invitation to be on the property. In Anderson v. Walthal, 468 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), a woman went to a personal residence for a business purpose and when she went around the back of the house a dog bit her. The landlord aruged that the woman had exceeded her invitation by wandering into the backyard where the dog was. The court claimed that the woman had exceeded her “invitation” by wandering into an area behind the home where the dog was located.
Negligence is another ground for liability in Florida, which is the lack of ordinary care. Negligence, one of the common law remedies, are an alternative to the dog bite statute in Florida. Stickney v. Belcher Yacht, Inc., 424 So. 2d 962 (Fla. Court of Appeal, 1983).
A slip and fall personal injury matter in Florida occurs when one is injured by falling due to some condition in a property that the one in control of the property had a duty to make and keep safe. Slip and fall injuries occur from the proverbial slip on a banana peel, to falling down on unreasonably dangerous stairs.
In general, to prove a personal injury slip and fall matter in Florida it is necessary to show that 1) the defendant was the owner and was in possession of the property where the fall occurred, 2) the property was used as, for example a supermarket, 3) the plaintiff entered onto the property for a legal purpose, which then created a duty on behalf of the property owner to make the property safe, 4) there was a dangerous condition on the property that the defendant either knew about, such as a crack in the floor, or should have known about due to the passing of time, such as a water spill, and 5) due to the dangerous condition, the plaintiff fell and was injured.
All owners of properties owe a duty to their invitees to use reasonable care to keep their premises in safe condition. Everett v. Restaurant & Catering Corp., 738 So.2d 1015, 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Despite this, the general rule is that when there is slippery substance on the floor, such as a water spill, the injured plaintiff will need to be able to prove that the owner of the property knew about the water spill and failed to clean it up, or alternatively, that due to the passage of time, the owner should have know of the water spill. Premises like supermarkets have a duty to monitor their stores and set cleaning and maintenance schedules to look for things such as water spills. Further, in the instance of a water spill, the premises owner might still be liable even if they put up a sign that said “Danger, wet floor”, if a reasonably prudent supermarket owner would have cleaned up the spill immediately.
To prove that the owner knew of the water spill, circumstantial evidence will need to be proved by the plaintiff showing that 1) the dangerous condition was present for such a length of time that a premises owner in the exercise of reasonably prudent care would have known about the condition, or 2) this type of dangerous condition, such as a water spill, occurred with such regularity that it was reasonably foreseeable that such a condition would be present and that the owner should have taken action to prevent it. With respect to the second condition, in the example of a supermarket, spills are bound to happen and products, such as fruit, are bound to fall on the ground, creating dangerous conditions. It is the duty of the supermarket operator to maintain the premises and clean them with sufficient regularity to protect the public.
According to Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence Section 301.1 (2000 ed.), premises liability cases involving transitory foreign substances are the right type of case where the burden of proof should shift to the store owner to prove that it used reasonable care in maintaining its premises, thus eliminating the requirement that the plaintiff prove that the store owner had constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition prior to the matter going to trial before jury. This shifting burden is based on fairness and public policy. There is therefore a rebuttable presumption in a slip and fall case that the store did not exercise reasonable care in its maintenance of the premises. See Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So.2d 315, 331 (Fla. 2001). See also Florida Statutes Section 768.0710 (2005).
With respect to slip and fall injuries at amusement parks, a particularly relevant issue in the Sunshine State, the Florida Supreme Court created a special rule by imposing a higher duty of care for owners and operators of amusement parks to the public. With amusement park injuries, the parks have a continuous duty to maintain the safety of their patrons and can be liable even without notice or knowledge of the dangerous condition that caused the fall as long as they are considered negligent in their maintenance and supervision of the park.
of the public at the place of business.
independent acts of the employee under a different set of rules.
other which gives the other a right to protection. K.M. ex rel. D.M.
propensity to commit such acts.
the protection of third parties.
failed to take action at this point.
chain when the product left their control.
3) the defect was the cause of the user’s injuries.
c) or an inadequate warning on a product.
Mfg. Co., 816 So.2d 1133, 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
no cause of action for negligent distribution of a non-defective gun.
in the handling of the product.
damages could be available to the plaintiff.
place the funds in his or her escrow account.
followed in the event of a dispute.
to those funds, the broker could be held liable under the law.
or both parties, buyer and seller, demand the real estate deposit.
the broker has not considered.
against the other to determine the proper disbursement.
money went to the wrong party.
objective way than they might have.
In bringing a legal action in Florida for Personal Injury, four factors must be proven. The first factor is that the defendant owed a legal duty to conform to a certain standard to not harm the plaintiff. The second factor is that the defendant breached that legal duty. The third factor is that the plaintiff was injured due to this breach of duty. The fourth and final factor is that the breach of the duty caused injury to the plaintiff.
Not all persons who cause injury will be liable under a personal injury action. For instance, there are exemptions under the Florida Statutes for persons such as Good Samaritans acting to aid another – See Florida Statute Section 768.13. Further, just because one is injured by the actions of another does not mean that the one causing injury should be liable in tort for the injury. For example, a doctor may make the reasonable decision to perform an operation, after explaining the risks to the patient (informed consent), which in the end could cause injury to the patient, though the operation was deemed to have the potential for the greater good.
In Florida, an injured person can also be partially liable for their own injuries. This is referred to as comparative negligence. The injured person’s monetary recovery against a defendant will be reduced by that percentage that the injured person was responsible for the injury. Further, an injured person may have assumed the risk to themselves in an activity and cannot successfully sue another for the injury. This would be the case in, for example, a sport where the injured was deemed to know the risk of being hit with a baseball but participated anyway. Thus it is deemed reasonably foreseeable that this type of injury would occur and the injured individual assumed this risk.
Employers are often responsible for the injuries caused by their employees under a theory of respondeat superior, or vicarious liability. This is referred to as joint and several liability. Further, businesses can be liable for the injuries caused by their independent contractors when the business was negligent in the hiring of the contractor, negligent in the supervision of the contractor, or negligent in the training of the contractor. The business can also be liable for its contractors on certain types of dangerous jobs that it is deemed to dangerous to allow the contractor to pass off legal responsibility to a third party. This is similar to strict liability which holds that regardless of how much care one takes, the undertaking of the activity will impose liability no matter who is at fault for the injury.
1) Whether the defendant made a statement that he/she thought was true but was actually false.
2) Whether the defendant was negligent in making the statement because he/she should have known that the statement was false.
4) Whether the hearer justifiably relied on the statement.
5) Whether the listener suffered injury as a result of relying on the statement.
The statement made by the defendant must be material or important and not a small portion of a more in depth statement which is essentially true. According to Standard Jury Instructions-Civil Cases (No. 99-2), 777 So.2d 378, 381 (Fla. 2000), a material facts is one that is of such importance that the plaintiff would not have entered into a transaction but for the statement. Comparative negligence can apply to a case of negligent misrepresentation when look at whether the listener justifiably relied on the statement by the defendant.
Fraudulent misrepresentation is where the defendant knows that the statement is false and intends that the plaintiff rely on it to his/her detriment and to the benefit of the defendant. Fraudulent misrepresentation requires less of showing concerning comparative fault where the plaintiff could have through some diligence ascertained that the statement was false, as the law wishes to punish those who use fraud more than those who are merely negligent.
The pleading requirements for a lawsuit for both negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation require pleading with specificity.
1) a false statement concerning a material fact.
2) knowledge by the person making the statement that the statement was false.
3) the intent of the person making the statement that the listener would rely on the statement.
4) the listener relies on the statement to their detriment.
Class Actions cannot be brought under separate contracts on the basis of fraud. Further, one in Pari Delictor, or who engaged in fraud themselves, may be barred from bringing an action. Fraud in the inducement, like the other causes of action above, must be plead with particularity in accordance with Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.120(b), and must list who made the statement, the substance of the false statement, when the statement was made and in what context.
Fraud in the Inducement is the use of deceit or trick to cause someone to do something to their detriment, such as using false statements to induce someone to sign a contract that is to their detriment.
A further related cause of action is Fraud in the factum, where a misrepresentation cause one to enter into a transaction without understanding the risks, duties or obligations incurred. To determine whether a transaction involves fraud in the factum a consideration of all the relevant factors to the transaction is necessary. An example of Fraud in the factum would be if one induced you to sign one type of contract when in fact it was a different type of contract. In this case the contract would be voidable due to the fraud (as opposed to void on its face). Fraud in the factum can be considered an equitable defense to the terms of the contract.
Another type of fraud would be Extrinsic fraud which usually occurs in family and domestic relations cases whereby one uses fraud to prevent one from obtaining information necessary to their ability to prove their case, such as lying on a Florida Family Law Financial Affidavit, or fabricating evidence. Extrinsic fraud also occurs in foreclosure cases where the lender through their fraud forces the homeowner to lose their property.
Intrinsic fraud, on the other hand, is where fraud was used to procure a transaction. The two types of intrinsic fraud are fraud in the inducement and fraud in the factum, as listed above.
A term often used in the context of fraud is Scienter, or knowledge of the wrongdoing. Thus one committing a fraud would have knowledge that what they are doing is fraudulent and have the intent to commit the fraud. For example, under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with scienter, though the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 added that the plaintiff must prove a “strong inference” of scienter.
In Florida, Doctors and other medical staff are held to a standard of care as to the services they provide. Failure to meet that standard of care can lead to injury, which can lead the patient to have a medical malpractice lawsuit, or in the case of death, can leave the surviving family with a wrongful death lawsuit for monetary damages and other remedial measures against the doctor or other health care provider.
The standard of care for doctors in Florida is the care that would be used by a reasonably prudent doctor in the same circumstances. Failure to meet this standard can lead to liability for medical malpractice.
In Florida, to prove a medical malpractice case it must be shown that 1) a doctor patient relationship existed, 2) the doctor was negligent (failed to meet the appropriate standard of care), 3) and that this negligence led to injury to the patient.
Proving that a doctor patient relationship existed is not always straightforward. When one is in a hospital it is possible that there are many treating and non-treating doctors, one or all of whom could be potentially liable for injury. Further, there could also be other personal who are more liable for injury, such as an anesthesiologist or nurse. Further, what if a doctor was merely an acquaintance and gave advice outside of the hospital or office context that led to injury. Would a doctor patient relationship have been created?
The next step is proving that the doctor was negligent. In Florida, an expert will be needed to testify as to the standard of care that was reasonably prudent and how this doctor deviated from the standard of care. The expert will most likely be another doctor in the same profession as the potentially negligent doctor. The factors in negligence are that the doctor had a duty to the patient to provide reasonable care, the doctor failed to provide such care, this failure led to injury to the patient, and the patient was thereby damaged.
It then needs to be proven that the negligence of the doctor was actually the cause (proximate cause) of the injury or death. For instance, in a situation where a patient dies of lung cancer, a failure to properly treat the cancer could be considered negligence, but if the patient was going to die that day anyway, it could not be said that the doctor’s negligence actually caused the wrongful death. The negligence must cause the injury.
Damages in a medical malpractice case must then be proved. Damages can include pain and suffering, medical bills, lost wages, disfigurement, and in the case of wrongful death, the family could have their own claims against the doctor, hospital and other medical workers.
Common claims for medical malpractice are failure to diagnose, failure to adequately treat, failure to warn the patient of known risks, or what is also referred to as informed consent.
In Florida, a lawsuit for medical malpractice needs to be commenced relatively quickly and there is a strict statute of limitations on malpractice lawsuits. The statute of limitations in Florida for a medical malpractice claim is two years from when the patient knew of the doctors negligence or when the patient should have know something was wrong. So, for example, in cases where a sponge was left inside a surgery patient, the patient might not learn about the doctor’s negligence until some time after the occurrence. The statute would begin to run once the patient learned that the sponge was inside them. However, in Florida, there is a generally hard rule that a medical malpractice claim cannot in most circumstances be brought after four years from the negligence. However, if the doctor or other health care provider concealed the negligence and prevented the patient from learning of it within the four year period, the statute is increased an additional two years. With children, however, there is a statue of repose whereby the child’s right to bring a medical malpractice claim cannot be cut off before the child’s eighth birthday.
A personal injury lawsuit seeks to compensate one who is injured for damages such as lost job earnings, loss of future earning capacity, past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering and damages for disfigurement.
In a wrongful death action, the family of the deceased can bring an action against the one who caused the death for funeral and burial expenses, loss of financial support to the family, loss of affection and/or consortium, and loss of financial support.
In both cases, the injured needs to prove that the tortfeasor, or the one who caused injury, had a duty to the injured, and that they breached that duty by causing the injury. Resulting damages must also be proved.
Often their can be a number of significant intervening factors which can affect who is ultimately liable for an injury. Therefore, it is necessary to show that the alleged wrongdoer was the proximate or direct cause of the injury. Further, the injured can also be partially at fault for their own injuries and depending on the jurisdiction this can bar the injured from recovering damages, or can seek to reduce the damages in comparison to the percentage of fault.
After an injury or death, it is important to retain a lawyer as soon as possible who can reconstruct the accident scene to determine who was at fault. Police reports are often inaccurate, and experts need to be retained to interview witnesses, conduct tests on vehicles and of the location of the accident, and determine what happened in the accident. Without swift action, important evidence can dissipate.
Once the lawyer has a case and can prove that the alleged wrongdoer was negligent and caused injury or death to his or her client, he can then negotiate a settlement with the insurance companies.
If, however, the insurance companies challenge their clients’ liability, a lawsuit will need to be filed on behalf of the client alleging Duty, Breach of Duty, Causation, and Damages. Mediation between the parties will often be a useful step in attempting to resolve the matter prior to intensive litigation leading to trial. Proving damages will require intensive compilation of earnings and potential future earnings, lost wages, medical bills, both past and future, and the like. Actuarial information may also need to be obtained to determine how long the injured client will potentially live, or how long a deceased client was likely to have lived barring the accident.
Experts, like doctors, will often need to be called to testify in court as to extent of injuries, lifespan, earning capacity, pain and suffering and the like. Insurance companies will hire their own experts who will provide differing opinions on the issues of the case. Depositions and direct testimony of witnesses, including statements elicited by the police, will also need to be compiled and brought out in trial.
Once a trial is concluded the jury will return their verdict as to liability and monetary damages. Either party has the right to appeal the decision of the jury to a higher court if the decision was arrived at due to some procedural or evidentiary defect during the trial, which was preserved for appeal.
The lawyer will assist the client in determining what is in the best interests of the client when deciding on whether to accept settlements or whether to try the case to a jury and through possible appeal to the appellate courts.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.