Multi-Car Accident on Archer Road and Interstate 75 – 11/19/2015

The attorneys of Massey & Duffy extend our deepest sympathies to the victims and families involved in the deadly accident on Interstate 75 in Gainesville yesterday.

At approximately 5:10pm on Wednesday November 18th, two commercial trucks and several passenger vehicles were involved in a horrific accident near the 384 mile marker of I-75, near Archer Road.  The accident left one person dead and several others injured.  Florida Highway Patrol and Alachua County Fire Rescue personnel responded to the scene shortly after the report.

Due to the efforts of first responders and witnesses to the scene, two victims were quickly evacuated from the scene and treated for serious injuries at UF Shands Hospital.  Several others involved in the crash were treated at the scene for minor injuries.

The crash, which involved a diesel fuel transport truck, caused a tractor trailer to catch fire for several hours and caused the complete shutdown of I-75 in both directions.  The scene was eventually cleared, well after 10 pm last night and normal traffic resumes today.

Florida Highway Patrol Officers are still investigating the cause of the accident and are expecting the investigation to last several days.  No statement has been released regarding the cause of the deadly accident, which took place during very heavy afternoon traffic and light rain.

The early minutes of a thunderstorm can sometimes be the most dangerous.  Oil pools left from vehicles have a tendency to cause slick conditions before being washed away by the heavier rain.  I-75 is particularly dangerous due to being a major commuting route between Ocala, Gainesville and Lake City.  It is important to take precautions, even if a mere drizzle is present or rain has not started yet.  Thunderstorms in Florida can be unpredictable and spotty and just because you have not observed rain does not mean it has not rained previously on other parts of the highway.

It is possible to avoid most serious accidents by increasing your following distance during inclement weather or low visibility, turning your headlights on, and not being distracted by cellphone use or texting.  Posted speed limits are designed for optimal driving conditions, meaning that weather and low visibility may require lower than posted speeds to maintain safe driving conditions.

If you or a family member is injured in an auto accident, immediately call the Florida Highway Patrol.  Take pictures of the accident scene, and contact an attorney who specializes in personal injury cases.  The attorneys of Massey & Duffy will be able to assist you in your Bodily Injury claim and help you navigate the insurance claim process.  We handle Personal Injury, Wrongful Death as well as numerous other claims involved in automobile accidents.  Time is critical in these cases to preserve evidence and get you and your family the medical attention they need, Call our office today for a FREE Consultation at (352) 505-8900.

Top Ten Medical Malpractice Blogs You Should Be Reading

Top Ten Medical Malpractice Blogs You Should Be Reading

  1. Florida Supreme Court Rules on Medical Malpractice Award Caps – written by Mark Kaire, a Personal Injury Attorney in Miami and member of the “Million Dollar Advocates Forum” and the “Multi Million Dollar Advocates Forum,”

http://www.kairelaw.com/medical-malpractice/fl-supreme-court-rules-on-med-mal-caps/

  1. Wrong, Missed, Delayed Diagnosis Happens to Majority of Americans – by Bruce Sheiner, a Medical Malpractice Attorney in Fort Myers who has handled more than 200,000 cases since 1970.

http://www.injury-lawyer-florida.com/2015/11/wrong-missed-delayed-diagnosis-happens-to-majority-of-americans-new-report-says.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FloridaInjuryLawyerBlogCom+%28Florida+Injury+Lawyer+Blog%29

  1. Middle District of Florida Holds Medical Malpractice Case against Federally Supported Hospital Must Comply With Notice Provisions in the FTCA – by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A., Miami Personal Injury Attorneys

http://www.southfloridapersonalinjurylawyers-blog.com/2015/10/middle-district-of-florida-holds-medical-malpractice-case-against-federally-supported-hospital-must-comply-with-notice-provisions-in-the-ftca.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SouthFloridaPersonalInjuryLawyersBlogCom1+%28South+Florida+Personal+Injury+Lawyers+Blog%29

  1. Florida Psychiatrist Fined $5,000 By Board of Medicine After Jail Inmate’s Suicide – by George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

https://mentalhealthlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/25/florida-psychiatrist-fined-5000-by-board-of-medicine-after-jail-inmates-suicide/

  1. Florida State Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Allow Medical Malpractice Case Based on Patient Suicide to Proceed – By Wais, Vogelstein, Forman & Offutt, a Baltimore, MD Law Firm specializing in medical malpractice suits for over 75 years.

http://www.marylandmalpracticeteam.com/2015/09/state-supreme-court-to-decide-whether-to-allow-medical-malpractice-case-based-on-patient-suicide-to-proceed.html

  1. Negligence Lawsuit Over Florida Psychiatric Patient’s Death Must Comply With Pre-Suit Notice Requirements Enumerated in Medical Malpractice Reform Act – by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A., Miami Personal Injury Attorneys

http://www.southfloridapersonalinjurylawyers-blog.com/2015/09/negligence-lawsuit-over-florida-psychiatric-patients-death-must-comply-with-pre-suit-notice-requirements-enumerated-in-medical-malpractice-reform-act.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SouthFloridaPersonalInjuryLawyersBlogCom1+%28South+Florida+Personal+Injury+Lawyers+Blog%29

  1. Midwife Medical Malpractice – by Flaxman Law Group, a South Florida Personal Injury firm. Charles Flaxman has over 30 years’ experience as a trial lawyer.

http://www.floridainjurylawyerblog.com/2015/08/midwife-medical-malpractice.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FloridaInjuryLawyerBlogCom2+%28Florida+Injury+Lawyer+Blog%29

  1. Birth Trauma Injuries: Have they Affected You or Your Family? – by Flaxman Law Group, a South Florida Personal Injury firm. Charles Flaxman has over 30 years’ experience as a trial lawyer.

http://www.floridainjurylawyerblog.com/2015/08/birth-trauma-injuries-have-they-affected-you-or-your-family.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FloridaInjuryLawyerBlogCom2+%28Florida+Injury+Lawyer+Blog%29

  1. When Are Dentists Liable for Dental Malpractice? – written by Mark Kaire, a Personal Injury Attorney in Miami and member of the “Million Dollar Advocates Forum” and the “Multi Million Dollar Advocates Forum,”

http://www.kairelaw.com/medical-malpractice/dentists-liable/

  1. Retired Naval Officer in Vegetative State After Colonoscopy in Jacksonville, Florida – by Jared Green, New Hampshire Attorney and author and co-author of numerous journal articles and presenter/organizer of numerous legal education seminars on medical malpractice and products liability law and procedure.

http://www.nhmedmallawyer.com/blog/post/show/retired-naval-officer-in-vegetative-state-after-colonoscopy/

  1. Medical Malpractice Attorneys Serving Ocala, Gainesville, Lake City and Communities Across North Florida – by Michael Massey, partner with Massey & Duffy, PLLC, resident of Gainesville, Florida and a University of Florida graduate, Mr. Massey is proud to serve the community which he loves. The attorneys at Massey & Duffy offer FREE Consultations for medical malpractice suits. Call (352) 505-8900 today!

https://www.352law.com/news-2/

Gainesville Child Injury Lawyers Survive Dismissal

Child Injury
Child Injury

Massey & Duffy, Gainesville injury attorneys, have prevailed on a key Motion to Dismiss filed by two Defendants. In that case, our lawyers represent a child who drank a hazardous chemical. The Defendants argued they owed no duty to our child client (and his mother). They were wrong, as proven by the following legal argument:

In United States v. Stevens, 994 So.2d 1062, 1067 (Fla.2008), the Florida Supreme Court held that the inability to measure the extent of the risk involved – by itself – merits the Plaintiffs with an opportunity to go forward. The Court stated as follows:

Given the allegations of negligent security of the ultrahazardous material and the virtual impossibility of potential victims to protect themselves once this substance is at large, this is obviously one of those cases we contemplated in McCain, where the risk of injury is great and the corresponding duty of the lab is heightened. In a very real sense, it is this inability to measure the extent of this risk that merits giving the claimants an opportunity to go forward. Of course, the ultimate outcome of this case and the law it develops will be determined by the actual facts of the case as established in the trial court.

(e.s.), Id. at 1070. Thus, the Court in Stevens held that a laboratory owed a duty of reasonable care to members of the general public to avoid an unauthorized interception and dissemination of bio-hazardous materials.

Although Stevens involved ultrahazardous material, the First District in Herndon v. Shands Teaching Hospital made it clear that the holding also applies to merely hazardous material and is not limited to ultrahazardous material:

Stevens merely applied the principles enunciated in McCain to a defendant’s negligent control of anthrax, a much more hazardous substance than the drugs involved here. However, there is nothing in Stevens or McCain that supports a finding of no duty by Appellee to Michelle Herndon, as a matter of law, for a risk created by negligent control of admittedly dangerous drugs. Stevens was a recognition of a duty under McCain and not a limitation of that duty to the supervision of hazardous drugs having the same hazardous level of anthrax (as concluded by the trial judge).

Herndon v. Shands Teaching Hospital, 23 So.3d 802, 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (e.s.). The 1st DCA in Herndon further held as follows:

The drugs used to murder Michelle Herndon were dangerous drugs that require a doctor’s prescription, and Appellee was entrusted with their proper use. Appellee’s failure to ensure their proper use created a ‘zone of risk,’ as it exposed the general public to a risk that Appellee could have avoided by taking reasonable measures to prevent the drugs’ theft and removal without a doctor’s authorization.

Id. at 803-804 (e.s.). Thus, cases involving hazardous materials, drugs or chemicals involve greater risks to society, and it is “this inability to measure the extent of this risk that merits giving the claimants an opportunity to go forward.” Stevens, 994 So.2d at 1070. The Hazardous Material thus fall within the rationale of these cases.

Recently, in Dorsey v. Reider, No. SC12-2197 (March 27, 2014), the Florida Supreme Court reversed a district court’s determination that it must “evaluate whether the type of negligent act involved in a particular case has so frequently previously resulted in the same type of injury or harm that `in the field of human experience’ the same type of result may be expected again.” The Court stated thatThis interpretation of our McCain decision and the proper test to be applied when determining if the defendant’s conduct has created a broad zone of foreseeable risk is incorrect.Instead, “[a]s to duty, the proper inquiry for the reviewing appellate court is whether the defendant’s conduct created a foreseeable zone of risk, not whether the defendant could foresee the specific injury that actually occurred.”

Should your child also suffer a terrible personal injury, our lawyers can help. We have experience with these child injury claims, and are averrable to assist. Please call our Gainesville injury attorneys ASAP.

Ocala Lawsuit Filed

Our law firm files complaints in Ocala, Florida. For example, the following unjust enrichment lawsuit was filed by our attorneys serving Ocala:

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff sues Defendant as alleges as follows:

1. This is an action for damages of more than $5,000.00 but less than $15,000.00, exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs. 

2. Defendant is a company with its main office in Ocala, FL. 

3. Venue is proper in this Court. 

4. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter. 

5. Plaintiff was hired to perform services including storm damage removal by Defendant.  Plaintiff fully performed these services. 

6. In exchange for performing these services, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff the amounts indicated on the attached Exhibits A and B.

7. Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff the amounts indicated on the attached Exhibits A and B and currently owes these amounts to Plaintiff, thus damaging Plaintiff. 

COUNT I – UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

8. Plaintiff reallages counts 1 – 7 above.

9. Defendant has been unjustly enriched by the Plaintiff’s performance of services without payment therefore. 

10. Plaintiff conferred a benefit on Defendant, and Defendant has knowledge of that benefit.  

11. The Defendant has accepted and retained the conferred benefit. 

12. Under the circumstances, it would be inequitable for the Defendant to retain the benefit of Plaintiff’s services without paying for it. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages, past and future interest, expert fees, costs, and all other relief the Court deems necessary and proper. 

COUNT II – BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT

13. Plaintiff reallages counts 1 – 7 above.

14. Plaintiff and Defendant orally agreed to the payment for the services previously mentioned, on the terms identified in the attached Exhibits A and B. 

15. Defendant has failed to pay the Plaintiff according to the terms agreed for Plaintiff’s services. 

16. Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendant’s breach of their oral agreement.  

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages, past and future interest, expert fees, costs, and all other relief the Court deems necessary and proper.

COUNT III – ACCOUNT STATED

17. Plaintiff reallages counts 1 – 7 above. 

18. Plaintiff provided to Defendant the invoice statements attached hereto as Exhibit C.

19. Defendant did not object to these invoices.  

20. Before the institution of this action, Plaintiff and Defendant had business transactions between them and they agreed to the payment of the amounts indicated in the attached Exhibits A, B and C. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages, past and future interest, expert fees, costs, and all other relief the Court deems necessary and proper.

Dated on February 25, 2014.     

/s/ Michael Massey

Fla. Bar. No. 153680

Designated email:  Massey@352law.com

Massey & Duffy, L.L.C.

855 E. Univ. Ave.

Gainesville, FL 32601

(352) 505-8900

 Attorney for Plaintiff

 

Deposition Notice

In both Florida and Federal cases, Plaintiffs can notice depositions with certain “areas of inquiry”.  Those can be difficult to articulate, so below is a sample.  Please seek legal advise before using such a thing, such as our lawyers.  Our attorneys serve Gaiensville, Ocala, Lake City and the surrounding areas.  The following is from an employment law case, but with modification it could easily be used to help the injured or in a divorce:

1. Each and every issue raised in Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories.

2. The answers to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories.

3. The current location of each and every document requested in Plaintiff’s first request to produce.

4. Any and all issues related to allegations that the Plaintiff’s work performance was good, bad, poor and/or insufficient.

5. Any and all reasons for the Plaintiff’s termination, reprimands and/or demotion.

6. The job description and job duties of the Plaintiff.

7. Each and every one of the Defendant’s affirmative defenses.

8. The Defendant’s answer to the Plaintiff’s complaint.

9. Knowledge of factual circumstances surrounding Defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses.

10. Knowledge of factual circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s complaint.

11. The job description and job duties of any and all of the Plaintiff’s supervisors.

12. The identify of any and all persons who’s job duties are similar to that of the Plaintiff.

13. The identity of all persons similarly situated to the Plaintiff.

14. All communications between the Plaintiff and any agent, director and/or employee of the Defendant.

15. All documents written by the Defendant (or its agents, directors and/or employees) to the Plaintiff.

16. All documents and/or letters written by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (or its agents, directors and/or employees).

17. All wages, benefits, earnings, and bonuses earned by the Plaintiff during the course of employment with the Defendant.

18. All reprimands provided (either verbally or written) by the Defendant (or its agents, directos and/or employees) to the Plaintiff.

19. All job duties of the Plaintiff’s supervisor.

20. All job duties of the person whom made (or was involved in any way) the decision to terminate the Plaintiff.

21. Any and all facts regarding those documents requested in Plaintiff’s first request to produce, including the authors of said documents and the circumstances surrounding their creation.

22. All employment policies and practices of the Defendant.