Florida negligence claims analysis for Cal's injuries

Florida Negligence Analysis

Legal Claims for Cal

Negligence- Abe

The first claim that Cal can bring is negligence against Abe for causing the accident. Negligence is the failure of an individual to use reasonable care. Under Florida law, negligence has four components that must be met in order for damages to be obtained.

Legal Duty

A plaintiff must prove that the negligent person had a legal duty to use reasonable care in protecting the injured person

Under Florida law, the requirement is that the standard of care is one of a "reasonably prudent person."

Florida also requires that the incident occurs within a foreseeable-zone-of-risk

Here, Abe was driving the car and Cal was the passenger. It was Abe's duty to safely transport Cal without any accidents or incidents.

Breach of Duty

The second requirement is that Cal prove that Abe breached this duty. A breach of duty is failure to conform to the standard of care.

Here, Abe caused a car accident. By causing a car accident Abe was not acting as a reasonably prudent person because he violated a traffic law causing the accident and failing to transport Cal safely in his car.

Negligence- Ann

The second claim that Cal can bring is negligence against Ann for causing the second accident. Negligence is the failure of an individual to use reasonable care. Under Florida law, negligence has four components that must be met in order for damages to be obtained.

Legal Duty

A plaintiff must prove that the negligent person had a legal duty to use reasonable care in protecting the injured person. Under Florida law, the requirement is that the standard of care is one of a "reasonably prudent person." Here, Ann was driving a separate car from Cal. Ann has a legal duty to drive responsibly and follow all traffic laws including not colliding with other vehicles.

Breach of Duty

The second requirement is that Cal prove that Ann breached this duty. A breach of duty is failure to conform to the standard of care. Here, Ann collided with Abe's car which Cal was the passenger. By colliding with Abe's car, Ann breached her duty as a driver to avoid collisions with other vehicles.

Causation

The third requirement is causation. Under Florida law, Cal must prove that Ann was the proximate cause of his injuries. Under proximate cause, the cause of the injuries must have been foreseeable by the defendant. Here, Ann collided with the car Cal was driving resulting in a serious injury to his legs. It is foreseeable that car collisions cause injuries to drivers and passengers. Thus, Ann was the proximate cause of his leg injury.

Damages

The final necessary element is damages. The plaintiff must have suffered an injury. The injury can be physical, financial, or damage to property. Here, Cal suffered serious injury to his legs that resulted in both legs being amputated. So, Ann is liable for any and all expenses, pain and suffering, and subsequent loss of income resulting from this injury.

Negligence- Doctor

The third claim that Cal can bring is negligence against the Doctor. The specific type of negligence in this case is commonly referred to as medical malpractice. Negligence is the failure of an individual to use reasonable care. Under Florida law, negligence has four components that must be met in order for damages to be obtained.

Legal Duty

A plaintiff must prove that the negligent person had a legal duty to use reasonable care in protecting the injured person. Under Florida law, the requirement is that the standard of care is one of a "reasonably prudent person." The standard of care specifically would be a reasonably prudent doctor. Here, the doctor owes Cal a duty to perform the surgery without any incidents and according to standard surgical protocol.

Breach of Duty

The second requirement is that Cal prove that the doctor breached this duty. A breach of duty is failure to conform to the standard of care. Here, the doctor performed the surgery but accidentally left a metal clamp in Cal's leg.

Under Florida law, this matches the criteria of a legal concept known as "Res Ipsa Loquitor" or the thing speaks for itself

. Here, medical instruments are never to be left in patients. The fact that the instrument was found and subsequently removed is proof that the doctor breached his legal duty. No further evidence of breach is required.

Causation

The third requirement is causation. In a res ipsa loquitor case, there is causation in fact. Cal would not have suffered the pain or required a subsequent surgical removal of the clamp were it not for the Doctor's negligence. Thus, causation is directly proven.

Damages

The final necessary element is damages. The plaintiff must have suffered an injury. Here, Cal suffered great pain after the surgery until the instrument was found. He also had to undergo another surgery to remove the medical instrument. Thus, Cal has clear damages from the incident.

Under Florida law, Cal can fully recover his physical damages for the actual surgery. Cal is limited, however, to only collecting $500,000 for his pain and suffering. Additionally, because this was a clear res ipsa loquitor case, Cal can also recover up to $500,000 in punitive damages

Conclusions

Cal has three legitimate claims that he can file and collect damages for. Cal can file against Abe for causing the accident and the minor injury to his head. Cal can file against Ann for causing the second collision and the subsequent amputation of his legs. Finally, Cal can file against the Doctor for negligently leaving a clamp in his leg.

57A AM JUR. 2D Negligence [section] 87

Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm § 3 (P.F.D. No. 1, 2005)

Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33, 35

Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm § 3 (P.F.D. No. 1, 2005)

Florida Code TITLE XLV TORTS Chapter 768 NEGLIGENCE PART II DAMAGES (ss. 768.71-768.81) 768.81 Comparative fault.

Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm § 3 (P.F.D. No. 1, 2005)

Restatement (Third) of Torts section 17

Florida Code TITLE XLV TORTS Chapter 768 NEGLIGENCE PART II DAMAGES section 768.73 Punitive damages; limitation.