Resort Injury Lawyer Blog

"Eye-opening indictment of the way big business spins the media." --Variety
"Stunning debut ... Sends audiences out of the theater thinking in a brand new way." --Washington Post
"Entertaining, informative ... vividly illuminating." --Hollywood Reporter

HOT COFFEE is a feature-length documentary film by Susan Saladoff, revealing what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the Albuquerque woman who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald's. The film explores how and why the case garnered so much media attention, who funded the effort and to what end. After seeing this film, you will decide who really profited from spilling hot coffee.

From the HOT COFFEE Website:
The civil justice system has been under heavy attack for over 25 years. Despite the fact that federal legislation has never been successful, big business interests have won in the hearts and minds of average people. They launched a public relations campaign starting in the mid-80's and continuing over the last two decades to convince the public that we have out of control juries, too many frivolous lawsuits and a civil justice system that needs reforming. They have used anecdotes, half-truths and sometimes out and out lies in their efforts, for one purpose - to put limits on people's access to the court system, the one and only place where an average citizen can go toe to toe with those with money and power and still have a shot at justice.

Voters believe that we have a court system out of control that needs reforming. Although there are consumer advocacy groups who have attempted to set the story straight, there has yet to be enough money to launch the kind of public relations campaign for consumers that can even begin to combat and challenge the public relations campaigns of pro-business and tort reform groups.

We think this movie has the potential, with the right funding and effort, to really change the way people think about our civil justice system and access to the courts.

A shooting spree left one person dead and seven injured inside a downtown Miami nightclub. Nocturnal Nightclub, in Miami's Park West Entertainment District, has allegedly hosted "gangster parties" and has lax security, according to neighboring club owners, reported The Miami Herald. Miami police confirmed that the club had been rented by a promoter for the evening and no metal detectors were used.

The shooting occurred inside the club around 3:00am on a Sunday in a crowded second-floor room. Investigators suspected a rival confrontation sparked the shooting and not an alcohol-induced argument. The shooter had a seven-year criminal record including burglary, grand theft, forgery, petty theft, resisting arrest and assault and battery.

Shootings, stabbings and other acts of violence have routinely occurred in the Park West Entertainment District, located just south of Interstate 395 and just west of Biscayne Boulevard. Nocturnal has reportedly been more lax on security than other clubs in the area, some say due to financial troubles.

Inadequate security and premises liability lawsuits can unfold from violent crime in resort and recreational areas, including nightclubs. Premises liability may result from negligent security, inadequate security personnel, insufficient lighting, inadequate security equipment, or other causes. In negligent security cases, the plaintiff who has been injured due to a criminal act brings an action against the owner or manager of the premises or business. Those who are in control or in a position to prevent the incident where the plaintiff was injured are the parties who are most often defendants. The law governing these cases is derived from the general principle that those who own or possess property have a duty to protect users from accidental, negligent, and intentional acts of third parties.

Most negligent security cases turn on the issue of foreseeability: Was the incident reasonably foreseeable by the owner or business?
One of the tools used to analyze foreseeability is the crime grid, which has been held admissible at trial, and involves obtaining from a police agency a record of the service calls for the area around the address of an incident.
In some states, the "prior similar" rule applies where a similar act must have occurred on the premises in the past for the subject to be foreseeable crime. In Florida, the courts look at the "totality of the circumstances" and evidence of prior crimes that occurred off the premises is relevant; a prior crime on the property is not necessary to prove foreseeability.

A bill unprecedented not only in Florida but nationally has been proposed in our State.

The past state legislative session attempted to split and pack the Florida Supreme Court and remove the power of the independent judicial nominating commissions to nominate appellate judges. It would require more than a majority vote for merit retention. This is a serious threat to judicial independence in Florida.

The proposed legislation would politicize judicial selection, revoking the freedom judges currently have to decide cases fairly and impartially, relying only on the facts and the law. The new legislation would no longer protect them from the pressures that judicial independence is designed to keep at bay, including political, legislative, special interest, media, public, and financial pressures.

Local and state bar associations have expressed strong opposition to the legislation, as have former Florida Supreme Court justices, both conservative and liberal. An independent judiciary is the last stop on a democracy train which is already riddled with special interest stops along the way.

If you are also concerned about this threat to judicial independence,
write to: DearJohn@LeightonLaw.com.

In an editorial published yesterday in The St. Petersburg Times, a doctor not surprisingly endorsed the accountability of expert witnesses who could testify against her in a medical malpractice case, while also endorsing the new law that weakens accountability requirements for doctors.

This is hardly a balanced or objective argument.

Dr. Madelyn E. Butler's assertion that the new legislation "makes Florida a friendlier place to practice medicine" is tantamount to saying it's now easier for doctors to make major medical mistakes in Florida that injure or kill patients, and not have to answer for them.

Her perspective is not surprising, given that she is President of the Florida Medical Association. It would not be far-fetched to believe that her opinion is influenced by politics and special interests.

If physician accountability creates a "dangerous medical liability climate," what does the new legislation do for people who suffer catastrophic injuries or -worse- die at the hands of doctors who know their accountability has been limited? Is this not a more dangerous scenario?

Dr. Butler ignores the fact that the independent/conservative studies find that medical mistakes take the lives of 90,000 Americans each year and injure a million. What is most astonishing is that 9 out of 10 medical errors do not end up in a lawsuit or claim. How is it a dangerous climate to create a deterrence to mistakes and provide for compensation of those who are hurt by professional mistakes?

Dr. Butler claims that "Medical liability reforms such as HB 479 will make Florida a better place to practice medicine, positively affecting patients' access to care." She fails to see that care without accountability is unconscionable.

The reform indeed favors doctors, not patients' access to responsible care or to their rights to justice.

By capping damages, the law only punishes those patients who have been most seriously injured by malpractice. By requiring out-of-state expert physicians to obtain certification, it punishes victims because in-state doctors can always find other friendly doctors to testify for them. The patients face a more difficult battle because doctors within the state are often fearful of testifying against other doctors or hospitals, since their livelihood (and reputation and referrals) could be damaged.

The law is bad for everyone except those hospitals and doctors who make mistakes that hurt patients.

Dr. Butler, a practicing OB-GYN, also omits the fact that most OB-GYNs refuse to carry malpractice insurance, thereby guaranteeing that the few who do will pay a huge amount. Insurance is about risk spreading, which is why if only 10 people in a county carry car insurance their premiums would be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Let me end on this rhetorical question: Do you think it is fair to limit the recovery of a patient who is the victim of a wrong leg surgery... by a doctor who had performed ANOTHER wrong leg surgery just a year before?
I represented a client in just that situation.
Do you think the accountability of the Board of Medicine prevented the second wrong leg surgery?
Do you think that paying a fine and writing an article on wrong leg surgery is the kind of accountability that promotes a friendlier place to practice medicine?
And is "friendly" really what the citizens of Florida deserve or need?
How about safer and accountable?

Safety policies and procedures at hotels and resorts are keys to the safety of both guests and employees.

A simple light bulb change in the pool area of the Stonewall Resort and Conference Center in West Virginia resulted in a debilitating foot and ankle injury for a resort-employed electrician, who fell about 20 feet onto concrete, reported the West Virginia Record. The employee claims he received an electrical shock when changing the bulb, causing the fall from an extension ladder.

As a general rule, property owners have a duty to keep their premises in a reasonably safe condition to protect against dangers of which the owner is aware, should be aware, or might reasonably foresee.

More concerns regarding the healthcare and welfare of Florida citizens are in the spotlight with yet another reform bill passed last Thursday in the Florida Senate's budget committee.

The Medicaid reform bill seeks to expand the role of HMOs, doctor- and hospital-based networks, and other managed-care companies, allowing them almost full control of managing the Medicaid system, in order to reduce long-term costs, reported the Miami Herald.

The bill also proposes to limit lawsuits against some private medical school personnel, developmental-disability group homes and nursing homes.

It would also place a $250,000 limit on non-economic damages in wrongful-death lawsuits against nursing homes and also make it harder to sue for punitive damages.

Politicians claim that since Medicaid providers act as agents of the state, they should receive state protection.

The bill attempts to make it easier for the state to manage and avoid fraudulent claims, by ending the 'fee-for-service' system which currently pays about 80,000 providers for each service performed, and transitioning to a managed care system, whereby insurance companies would receive a capped amount to serve a patient.

Would you want to be treated by a doctor with 3 or more medical malpractice convictions?

Florida Senate Bill 1676 is aiming to allow for just that.

Citing concerns that the physician's practice environment in Florida is hindering the attraction of doctors to practice in Florida, the bill seeks to reverse Amendment 8 (s.26, Article X) which prohibits people who have been found to have committed three or more incidents of medical malpractice from being licensed by the State of Florida to provide health care services as a medical doctor.

SB1676 seeks to provide sovereign immunity to medical schools and their employees who provide patient services in public teaching hospitals, limiting the medical schools' liability to $200,000 and providing personal immunity to the doctors.

On April 4, The Senate Health Regulation Committee approved SB1676 in a 11-1 vote. The bill must now pass through two additional Senate committees.

A family has filed a civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court after their son died while free diving at The Homestead, a resort in Utah.

They say the resort and its business partner, The Crater, Inc., were not in compliance with Utah law that cites safety regulations for geothermal pools at resorts, because they did not employ a lifeguard, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.

They allege that better safety and rescue equipment as well as diver supervision could have prevented their son's death. They are seeking compensation for medical and funeral expenses, and for emotional trauma.

Their son was training at the geothermal pool for the U.S. National Freediving Championships. He remained underwater for six minutes at a time, and did not survive his last dive.

The Tribune reports that The Homestead was notified four times in 2008 and 2009 by the Utah Department of Health of the new safety regulations for geothermal pools at resorts, which took effect in July 2009, requiring a lifeguard. The diver's parents acknowledge in their complaint that there is a sign posted at the pool warning that drowning and other water-related injuries can occur.

© Benkrut | Dreamstime.com
Despite the dirty beaches, health issues, and lawsuits resulting from the Gulf oil spill last year, overall tourism increased in Florida by 2%, reports the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. The rise follows a two-year drop in visitors of nearly 4%.

Visit Florida, the state's tourism bureau, estimates that a total of 82.6 million visitors traveled to Florida in 2010. Visitors spend $60 billion annually in Florida and generate 22% of the state's total sales tax revenue. The tourism industry provides about one million jobs in Florida.

All this can give rise to Resort Torts - cases of civil liability for negligent or criminal in a resort, vacation or recreational setting. Resort Torts can encompass a vast array of types of cases but they all have one thing in common: tourists, business travelers and locals alike are all exposed to risk while traveling, vacationing or engaging in resort or pleasure activities.

When there's trouble in paradise...What are you liable for, as a business owner?

Today's law says that the duty of premises owners and operators is to keep their premises safe and free from obstructions or dangers. Timely and clear notice of any danger that could be unknown to the "invitee," must be clearly displayed. The law also provides that owners/operators of hotels, resort, or amusement parks are generally liable for the acts of their employees and respective agents.

Negligent security cases involving hotels, resorts and amusement and theme parks typically involve criminal assaults, such as robberies and sexual assaults. The law governing negligent security cases is largely a derivative of general premises liability law. The one who possesses the property is responsible for the care to the public. They must protect them from reasonably foreseeable intentional acts of third parties. Owners are obligated to provide adequate warning or protection.

Walt Disney Co. has been sued in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, by a quadriplegic who was left in his wheelchair on a stalled boat for about 40 minutes during an evacuation of other park visitors on the ride.

A report of the incident said that while stuck, the man suffered a type of sudden and potentially life-threatening high blood pressure attack that affects people with spinal cord injuries. In the report, the man is quoted as saying that the attack "feel like an ice pick going through your temples." In the lawsuit, he alleges that Disney employees did not call paramedics when this happened.

The Associated Press reported that the lawsuit also alleges Disneyland violated the Americans With Disabilities Act because it didn't have proper procedures in place for evacuating disabled passengers from the ride. The man is also suing for negligence, emotional distress and liability. He said Disney added "insult to injury" when Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse were sent to perform for him while he was treated at the park's first aid station.

In Florida, between Walt Disney World and Universal Orlando, there were eight ride injuries reported in the third quarter of 2010, according to state records cited in the Orlando Sentinel.
1. Disney's Animal Kingdom: A man suffered a seizure on the Dinosaur ride.
2. Disney's Animal Kingdom: A man experienced chest pain on the ride Expedition Everest.
3. Disney's Epcot: A woman experienced chest pain on the ride Mission: Space.
4. Disney's Typhoon Lagoon: A man collapsed and eventually suffered a stroke after riding Storm Slides.
5. Disney's Typhoon Lagoon: A woman lost consciousness in the wave pool.
6. Disney's Magic Kingdom: A woman fell and broke her spine on the moving passenger-loading area for Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin.
7. Universal Orlando: A woman broke her ankle on Camp Jurassic in Islands of Adventure.
8. Wet 'n' Wild: Someone experienced chest pain requiring the use of a defibrillator on Der Stuka.

Resort Torts are cases of civil liability for negligent or criminal acts that arise out of a resort, vacation or recreational setting. These can involve aspects of hotel and motel safety, cruise ship litigation, pleasure boating and jet ski incidents, amusement, aquatic, diving and swimming incidents, foreign travel and medical emergencies, gaming and casinos, aviation (commercial and general), rental car liability, moped, bicycle and motorcycle safety, buses and tour guides, travel industry liability for crime victims, and medical care provided to vacationers. Resort Torts can encompass a vast array of types of cases but they all have one thing in common: tourists, business travelers and locals alike are all exposed to risk while traveling, vacationing or engaging in resort or pleasure activities. Click here to contact a board certified civil trial specialist with 25 years of experience representing victims of negligence in personal injury matters.