CasesCrawford v. Department of Military Affairs
of the State of Florida,
412 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).» Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Krawzak,
675 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1996).» Kirkman Road Sports Pub and Restaurant, Inc. v. Dempsey,
723 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).» Marriott International, Inc. v. Perez-Melendez,
855 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).» McGhee v. Volusia County,
679 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1996).» Pixton v. Williams Scotsman, Inc.,
924 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).» Wenzel v. Boyles Galvanizing Co.,
920 F. 2d 778 (11th Cir. 1991).»
Reversed judgment for State of Florida.
James and Florence Crawford were injured when hit by a military truck driven by a member of the National Guard. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Department of Military Affairs finding the guardsman was not a state employee at the time of the accident. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the Crawfords in this appeal.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal found that even though the national guardsman was on weekend training that fulfilled a federal function, he was a state employee for whose negligent act the state had waived sovereign immunity. The summary judgment for the Department of Military Affairs was reversed and remanded for trial on the Crawfords’ negligence claim.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
Supreme Court required disclosure of party defendant status of an uninsured motorist insurance carrier to jury.
Susan Krawzak, who was rear-ended by an automobile driven by the Defendant, sued the Defendant and her uninsured motorist carrier. The jury found that Ms. Krawzak was not permanently injured and denied her all relief. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented Susan Krawzak on appeal before the Fourth District Court of Appeal, and the Florida Supreme Court.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in Krawzak v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 660 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), that Ms. Krawzak was entitled to a new trial because the jury instruction on permanent injury was incorrect. In addition, the court held an uninsured motorist carrier who is properly sued must be disclosed to the jury as a party defendant.
The insurance company appealed to the Florida Supreme Court and Ms. Lippincott again represented Ms. Krawzak. The Supreme Court upheld the Fourth District’s decision awarding Susan Krawzak a new trial.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
Protected judgment for parents whose child committed suicide after underage drinking.
A minor committed suicide several hours after being served alcohol at a sports bar. Her parents successfully sued the bar, and it appealed. Ms. Lippincott effectively represented the parents in this appeal.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal upheld judgment for the parents, ruling a jury could reasonably find some self-inflicted injury was foreseeable as a result of the minor’s intoxication.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
Million-dollar personal injury verdict affirmed despite possible error in one of two legal theories due to an appellate principle, i.e. the two-issue rule.
A hotel guest was seriously injured when she fell into a drain outlet on the property of the hotel. She brought action against the hotel claiming her injuries occurred as a result of the hotel’s negligence as a premises owner, and also in providing a transportation system that abandoned guests in a very dark and remote section of the hotel’s property. The jury returned a large verdict in favor of the guest. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the guest on appeal.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the hotel guest, finding the two-issue rule prevented reversal. Even though there may have been problems in the guest’s legal theory of negligent transportation, the hotel failed to establish error regarding other theories of liability that were sufficient to sustain the verdict.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
Supreme Court reversed decision for Volusia County.
Morris McGhee claimed he was beaten and injured during an arrest by a Volusia County deputy sheriff. He sued the County for his injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment for the County finding the deputy’s actions of beating an arrestee to be outside the scope of his employment, and the Fifth District agreed.
Ms. Lippincott successfully represented McGhee on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. The decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal was reversed, and the Supreme Court directed the reinstatement of McGhee’s action, finding the scope of employment issue to require a trial on the factual questions presented.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
Reversed dismissal of personal injury action.
Robert Pixton and his wife sued Scotsman, Inc. for negligence. Their action was dismissed by the trial court for the Pixton’s failure to follow procedural rules, and serve process on the defendant within certain time requirements.
Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the Pixtons on appeal. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reinstated the Pixtons’ action. Dismissal of an action is the ultimate penalty and could not be applied in this case without an evidentiary hearing, and proper consideration of a number of factors dictated by the Florida Supreme Court in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993).Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
Protected construction accident personal injury award.
Plaintiffs were working on the 135th foot level of the Straton Energy Center. As they began to break the thin strip of metal binding a bundle of steel, it sprung open causing them both to fall and sustain serious injuries. Plaintiffs sued the architect, construction manager and others for their injuries. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for a combined total of approximately two million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($2,750,000.00). Defendants appealed. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the Plaintiffs on appeal.
The United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, ruling:
1) An exculpatory clause in the construction management contract was insufficient to relieve defendants from liability;
2) The issue of whether the construction manager should have required its subcontractors to use safety nets was an issue for the jury;
3) The trial court did not err in refusing to permit defendants to introduce evidence on the apportionment of damages;
4) Defendants were not acting as the employer’s safety consultant so as to immunize them from suit pursuant to the workers compensation law.