Motorcycle and Car or Truck Collisions.

Sudden-Stop Collisions.

Single-Bike Accidents.

Open Door Accidents.

Most homeowners carry insurance, and the insurance company generally handles any claims against the homeowner, usually hiring an attorney and paying any damages awarded ( up to the limit of the policy), along with the court costs. However, it is no fun being involved in a lawsuit and it can often times be avoided. For your sake, and the sake of your guests or an innocent party, it is far better to prevent the injuries in the first place. Find out what might create a hazard by contacting a professional attorney for personal injury.

Generally, courts hold homeowners responsible only if they are in some way negligent. The law doesn't expect you to guarantee that someone visiting your house will not get hurt. People do trip over their own feet. But, it is the responsibility of the homeowner to take reasonable care to protect people from hazards that the homeowner knows about. The lack of such care is called negligence.
The majority of problems arise when the homeowner fails to maintain the property or creates a condition that may result in an injury. If the hazard cannot be eliminated , signs and barriers should be erected to give people fair warning. Pay particular attention to hazards that may attract and injure children, since they may not be able to read or have the presence of mind to obey the sign or warning.
Here in Florida, many people have swimming pools. The law considers swimming pools and other dangerous places that may appeal to children an "attractive nuisance." Homeowners have a legal duty to erect barriers to protect children from possible harm should they decide to play around a dangerous place on your property.

Another fertile area for possible injuries is dog bites. Florida law specifically states that" The owners of any dog which shall bite any person, while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of such dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the form or viciousness." The statute goes on to say that if the dog is provoked or if there is a sign displayed in a prominent place indication the words "bad dog," the property owner will not be liable.

There is a great concern over the number of tort cases filed. Although it may seem as though there is a potential claim or lawsuit everywhere, reasonable behavior is all that is generally required. For example, if you run a business that is frequented by people of all ages and people with poor eyesight and there is a large crack in the sidewalk, fix it. You might want to check with a Florida personal injury attorney to play it safe. It will not only be more attractive, but safer. People don't seem to realize that the number of negligence claims directly reflect the number of preventable injuries to innocent victims. It is therefore advisable for you to consult a personal injury lawyers in florida as soon as possible.

Whether it is concern for the safety of others, or concern over being sued, phrases like "defensive medicine, defensible care" should not offend anyone if the end result keeps people healthy. To be sure, claims and lawsuits will always exist, but if more people focus their energies to injury prevention, the number of claims will decrease. What is offensive about a "lawsuit crisis" is that it is necessary to illustrate the plight of the injured and motivate people to do something about it.

• Fatalities
• Spinal cord injuries
• Traumatic brain injuries (TBI)
• Broken bones and other fractures
• Shoulder, wrist and other joint injuries
• Whiplash and other neck injuries
• Burns and scarring

• Never drive in a truck’s blind spots
• Always keep a safe following distance when behind a truck
• If you are being tailgated by a truck, move over when possible to let them pass
• Avoid swerving through lanes when large trucks are nearby

• Your performance at work?
• Changes it may have caused at home?
• Planned events that you are not able to participate in because of your injuries?
• There may also be witnesses who will testify about the change in your life since the accident both at home and at work?
• Has the accident caused a change in your sex life or other marital relations?

Since providing information to the investigating officer may put parties in the position of making incriminating statements against themselves, section 316.066(5) allows a privilege for such statements given to a law enforcement while conduction and investigation. The privilege protects the speaker's 5th amendment right by keeping such statements from being used against the speaker in a civil or criminal trial. However, not everything included in the crash report is covered by this privilege Salama v. McGregor outlines what is not covered by the privilege.

"The privilege does not, however, preclude admission of the tangible evidence of an automobile accident, such as 'location of accident, vehicles' locations, skid marks, damage to vehicles, all observed by the investigating officer. All this information ordinarily appears on the accident report prepared by the investigating police officer and it is clearly admissible at trial."

Salama also points out that the accident reporting privilege may be waved.

"...a party may waive the accident report privilege if that party opens the door by introducing inadmissible information contained in the accident report."

In Addition to waiver, Florida has set out some important exceptions to the accident reporting privilege. One such exception is when the identity of the driver is not clear; "...there is an exception to the privilege and confidentiality of an accident report, filed pursuant to Chapter 316 of the Florida Statutes (1981), when the identity of the driver is an issue."

The second exception to the accident reporting privilege is when a party to an accident refuses to submit to a blood-alcohol  test, after a police officer has lawfully requested it , is not coerced by the officer, and thus not protected by the privilege against self-incrimination."  Since the accident report privilege is meant to protect parties' Fifth Amendment right, and the united states supreme court has deemed that refusal to submit to a blood -alcohol test does not fall within that right, the privilege does not apply.
 
The third exception occurs when the person who has given a statement to the investigating officer is not actually involved in the accident or the statement is not related to the cause of the accident. In Wisev. W.U. Telegraph Co., the employer of a party involved in a crash came to the scene after the crash occurred The employer told the investigating officer that the party was in the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The defendant asked the court to exclude the statement by the employer under the accident reporting privilege. The court help that every made does not necessarily itself and it should be made by someone who is actually involved in the accident. The court allowed the statement to come in because the employer was not "present at the time of the, had no first-hand knowledge of any matter affecting the circumstances of the accident, and the statement made does not necessarily come under the privilege. The statement should have some bearing on the investigation itself and it should be made by someone who is actually involved in the accident. The court allowed the statement  to come in because the employer was not "present at the time of the accident, had no first hand knowledge of any matter affecting the circumstances of the accident, and the statement attributed to him was not with respect to the cause of the accident or circumstances under which the accident occured." Similarly, in McTevia v. Schrag, a witness made a statement to investigating officer at the scene of the crash stating that he did not witness the accident. The witness later went to the police station and changed his statement. The plaintiffs wished to have the witness' first statement excluded under the accident reporting privilege. The court held that the first statement was admissible. A witness is not a party and is required to make n accident report. Therefore, such statements are not covered by the reporting privilege.

Florida also recognizes a fourth exception to the accident report privilege in cases where a party makes an excited utterance against their interest. In Perez v. State, a defendant, after crashing into a truck, got out of his car when the investigating officer arrived and said, "I'm a deputy sheriff and I f%@##! up."11 Perez had been drinking and sought to suppress this statement at trial. The court found this case to indistinguishable from Goodis v. Finkelstein. In Goodis, a defendant exclaimed, upon regaining consciousness, "Oh my God, I must have passed out again!"13 "The Third District found the utterance not to be part of an "accident report" and deemed the statement as admissible 'as a declaration which was part of the res gestae and... against interest.14" The court in Perez determined that the defendant's statement was also admissible.

"we have found nothing in the record to suggest that at the moment when Perez's words were spoken the officer had initiated a criminal investigation... and conclude that our resolution of this matter fits comfortably within the supreme court's emphatically expressed view that 'the purpose of the statute is to clothe with statutory immunity only such statements and communications as the driver, owner, or occupant of the vehicle is compelled to make in order to comply with his or her statutory duty under section 316.006(1) and (2)."

In Addition to the exceptions Florida courts have distinguished statements made to an investigating officer who is conduction a criminal investigation.

In Alexander v. Penske Logistics, Inc., there were two officers investigating a crash.16 One officer performed the accident investigation and the other performed the traffic homicide investigation. The estate wished to exclude statements made to the traffic homicide investigator. The court stated, "Trooper Tierney did not perform the accident investigation or use its results. Tierney administered Miranda warnings to the truck driver, and the truck driver waived his Miranda rights. No accident report privilege attached to the statements maybe by the truck driver to Trooper Tierney.: The court referred to a Florida Supreme Court Case.

"To clarify our decision, we emphasize that the privilege granted under section 316.003 is applicable if no Miranda warnings are given. Further, if a law enforcement officer gives any indication to a defendant that he or she must respond to questions concerning the investigation of an accident, there must be an express statement by the law enforcement official to the defendant that:this is now a criminal investigation," followed by Miranda warnings, before any statement by the defendant may be admitted."

This is sometimes referred to as the "changing hats" rule which applies even if the officer investigating the accident is the same officer conducting the criminal investigation.

Perhaps the most compelling exception to the accident report privilege is found in Hendrix v. Evenflo Company, Inc., a United States District Court in the Northern District of a Florida case. The Plaintiff sued an infant car seat manufacturer for a defective car seat that came apart during a low speed crash. The defendant sought to exclude the accident report. The court, interpreting Florida law, stated

"Evenflo also cites Florida's statutory privilege concerning statements made for the purpose of preparing a traffic accident report, Fla. Stat 316.006(7), for the astonishing proposition that an accident report may not be used in a trial. This argument is meritless" The court explained it's holding as follows:

(A) Public records and reports are excepted from the usual rule barring hearsay. In pertinent part, Rule 803(8) provides the exception for: 'Records, reports, statements, or data complications, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth... (B) matters observed pursuant to duty to report,... or (C) in civil action and proceedings...factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness."

The court explained further how the investigating officer prepared the report,

"...he simply followed his usual, official procedure of gathering relevant information regarding the accident and from that prepared a written report. Nothing in Noiseux's procedure suggests a lack of trustworthiness... Noiseux will be permitted to testify as a fact witness as to it's preparation and the information it contains."

In sum, Florida law provides protection for the parties' 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. It has done this by creating a privilege in the accident reporting statute. More important than the privilege however, are the exceptions discussed above when attempting to place the crash report data and the investigating officer's testimony into evidence.

1. Follow the Ten Commandments – APITLAmerica.com
2. Get your Crash Team involved immediately
3. Preserve all evidence immediately.
4. Send out spoliation of evidence letters
5. Get all pertinent EOBRD &Computer Downloads from all vehicles immediately
6. make sure all relevant documents are preserved & obtained immediately
7. Obtain all information in spoliation letter and all other relevant docs.
8. Be aware of all SOL (Internal Doc Destruction Statutes of Limitation; Documents will be altered or destroyed in not already destroyed.
9. If you are not any expert in this are of the law, GET HELP immediately
10. Be motivated to do what must be done and then do it.
11. Do not bring a knife to a gun fight
12. Win the Case, Win the Case, Win the Case

1. Investigator – Former highway patrolman
2. Accident Reconstructionist
3. Videographer
4. Photographer
5. Tow Truck with secure indoor storage and the ability to preserve the evidence
6. Buy vehicles involved – especially client vehicle