South Florida Personal Injury Blog

The State of Florida, through its Legislature, has recognized that the varying conditions of Florida’s public beaches and coastal area can pose a significant risk to the safety of the general public. As such, legislation was passed in an effort to notify the public of dangers and to encourage beach-goers to exercise caution when certain conditions exist. The Department of Environmental Protections, through the Coastal Management Program, oversees the uniform warning and safety flag program at all areas of public access. The purpose is to encourage the display of uniform warnings and safety flags at public beaches.
The Florida Legislature has also enacted governmental immunity to protect the State of Florida from liability from accidental injury and death. Due to the inherent danger of constantly changing surf and other naturally occurring conditions along Florida's coast, the state, state agencies, local and regional government entities or authorities, and their individual employees and agents, shall not be held liable for any injury or loss of life caused by changing surf and other naturally occurring conditions along coastal areas. This immunity is preserved regardless of whether or not uniform warning and safety flags or notification signs developed by the department are displayed or posted.
For more information on personal injury matters, contact our Broward accident attorneys today.

Article contributed by attorney Denise Grass

Racial Discrimination of Temp Male Nurse.

For Florida race discrimination questions contact our employment attorneys today.

In April of 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided a case that involved racial discrimination under 42 USC 1981 claims based on race. This case was Williamson v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., 2010 WL 1444574 (C.A.11(Fla.)). In Williamson, the Plaintiff worked as a temporary licensed practical nurse for the named defendants. Plaintiff was a Jamaican-born black male. Id. Plaintiff was fired after he refused to perform janitorial duties. Id. Plaintiff claims he was subject to racial epithets before he was fired and that other supervisors commented on his race and national origin more than once. Id. Defendants claim that Plaintiff was fired for failure to procure prescribed medicine for a patient during his shirt. Id. Plaintiff claims this was true but that other non-minority nurses were not terminated when their performance was deficient. Id.
Plaintiff first contends in his race discrimination case that one of the defendants is liable under a “cat’s paw” theory. Id. A cat’s paw theory may apply when a biased actor recommends that an adverse employment action be taken against an employee, but the biased actor is not the ultimate decision-maker. (cites omitted). Id. As to the defendant that Plaintiff alleged this against, the Court held that there was no such evidence and thus dismissed the race case against this defendant. Id.
Title VII protects an employee from race discrimination. “When a Plaintiff uses circumstantial evidence in an attempt to prove discrimination or retaliation under Title VII, we may apply the burden shifting approach articulated in McDonnell Douglas. (cites omitted). Under this framework, “a plaintiff has the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that 1) he is a member of a protected class; 2) he was qualified for the position; 3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and 4) he was.. treated less favorably than a similarly-situated individual outside his protected class.” (cites omitted). Id.
Further, a plaintiff may establish his race discrimination case through direct evidence. Id. Direct evidence is evidence “which reflects a discriminatory or retaliatory attitude correlating to the discrimination or retaliation complained of by the employee.” Id.
As to the evidence presented in this race discrimination case, the Court held that the racial epithet did not constitute direct evidence. Further, the refusal to perform the assigned job duties was a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for Plaintiff’s firing. Also, the few jokes made did not rise to the level of direct evidence needed. Thus, the Court then looked to see if there was enough if looked at with circumstantial evidence. And to this the Court said no. In that the Defendant gave a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the firing and in that Plaintiff could not rebut it, the Court held that Plaintiff failed to show by circumstantial evidence that the firing was pretextual and thus Plaintiff’s discrimination case was dismissed in its entirety.
If you have been involved in a racial discrimination case that you would like to find out the answers to, please call and speak to racial discrimination lawyers Andrew S. Alitowski or William Ryan Moore at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637). We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

For Florida overtime compensation claims, please visit our website.

If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!

The Broward County injury lawyers of Alitowski & Moore write articles on liability issues weekly. There is never a fee to discuss your case with us.

The Florida Legislature found that dangerous dogs are an increasingly serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of the people of Florida. This holds true because of unprovoked attacks which cause injury to both persons and domestic animals. These attacks can often be attributable to the failure of dog owners to properly train and control their dogs. As such, the Legislature enacted certain laws dealing expressly with the topic of dangerous dogs as referenced in Florida Statute Section 767.

Florida law makes a dog owner liable for damages regardless of the former viciousness or dangerous propensities of the dog and regardless of the owner’s prior knowledge of such viciousness. A dog owner can prevent liability for dog bites if the owner prominently displays a readable sign with the words “Bad Dog.” A dog owner is also protected against liability for trespassers who are not lawfully on the premises. These exceptions do not apply to persons under the age of six.

If the injured person was found to be negligent in any way that proximately contributed to the dog bite, the liability of the dog owner will be reduced according to the percentage of fault of the injured person.

In addition to civil liability, dog owners can be punished criminally with respect to injuries imposed by their dangerous dogs. If a dog that was previously declared dangerous attacks or bites a person or a domestic animal without provocation, the owner is guilty of a first-degree misdemeanor. If a dog that was previously declared dangerous attacks and causes severe injury or death of a person, the owner can be charged with a third-degree felony. If a dog that has not been declared dangerous attacks and causes severe injury to person, the owner can be charged with a second degree misdemeanor if it is proven that the owner had prior knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities and demonstrated a reckless disregard for its dangerous propensities. Under all instances, the dog must immediately be confiscated by animal control and placed in quarantine for ten business days. The owner must be given written notice and has then ten days to request a hearing. If the owner fails to request a hearing, the dog will be humanely destroyed. The owner is liable for all boarding costs in order to keep the dog during the appeal procedure.
The Legislature in Section 767.11 broadly defines a dangerous dog as one which:
(a) Has aggressively bitten, attacked, or endangered or has inflicted severe injury on a human being on pubic or private property;
(b) Has more than once severely injured or killed a domestic animal while off the owner’s property
(c) Has been used primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting or is a dog trained for dog fighting; or
(d) Has, when unprovoked, chased or approached a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, provided that such actions are attested to in a sworn statement by one or more persons and dutifully investigated by the appropriate authority
It is important to note that a dog owner is not liable for injures that occur while the injured party is engaged in criminal activity or is attempting to engage in criminal activity at the time of the attack.

The Broward County injury attorneys of Alitowski & Moore are available to discuss your case at any time. Call us today.