Consumers were advised to immediately stop using the phones and power them down. These pertain to all Galaxy Note 7 phones purchased prior to September 2016. The manufacturer is reportedly offering free of charge a new Galaxy Note 7 with a different battery, or alternatively a full refund or a different replacement device.

As CNNMoney reported, this has left a lot of users in an odd place. That’s because many stores don’t have enough replacement devices yet. On the one hand, customers like their phones and certain features – like the stylus that allows them to copy-and-paste. The store offered them a “loaner” phone until it could get a replacement Note 7, but that loaner lacked many of the same features as the newer model. Some customers opined on Twitter that it would great if they could get a new phone that “doesn’t double as a hand grenade.” Another user stated that leaving his Note 7 on the charger each night, “Makes me appreciate each day like it might be my last.” 

Joking aside, these devices reportedly have the potential to cause some real damage and serious personal injury.

The defective battery issue was reportedly acknowledged by the firm just a few weeks prior to the issuance of the formal recall. The devices were first unveiled in mid-August, though it became clear not long after there were major problems, despite mostly positive reviews on its design, battery life, speed and features. Soon after, social media began trending with reports, images and videos of the phones exploding or catching fire.

A recall like this is especially troubling because smart phones have become such an integral part of our everyday lives. They are with us almost everywhere we go – and even by our bedside tables at night. The Pew Research Center reported in 2015 that nearly 70 percent of U.S. adults have a smartphone, which is double the 35 percent who said they had a smartphone in 2011. In certain groups, it’s even higher. For example, among those 18- to 29-years-old, 86 percent have a smartphone. The same is true of 83 percent of those between the ages of 30 and 49. Among those earning $75,000 or more annually, 87 percent have a smartphone. These groups are also the most likely to have the newest, latest model of smart phone and are probably more at-risk for dangers like this.

These statics are only expected to grow.

Samsung phones are manufactured in China, South Korea and New Jersey and have been sold at stores nationwide and online for between $850 and $890.

As our Miami defective product attorneys know, there have been a few reported cases of cell phones causing injury to consumers, including phones connected to this recall. There was a report just a few weeks ago that included an injury to a 6-year-old boy in Brooklyn, NY who was playing with a phone given to him by his grandfather. Although it was not a Note 7, it was reportedly still a Samsung phone. The phone reportedly suddenly burst into flames.

In St. Petersburg, FL, a social media user reported his Jeep was engulfed in flames in his driveway when a Note 7 exploded.

And in Palm Beach, the Palm Beach Post reports, a man was reportedly hospitalized when the Samsung Note 7 phone he was carrying in his pocket exploded.

If you have been injured by a defective product, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Government Recall Issued for Samsung Note7 Over Battery Fire Hazard, Sept. 15, 2016, By Paul Blake, ABC News

More Blog Entries:

Safeco Ins. Co. v. Fridman – Proving Wage Loss Damages After Car Accident, Aug. 22, 2016, Miami Defective Product Lawyer Blog

Our Miami personal injury lawyers admit upfront: It sounds like a dry, technical issue only lawyers would care anything about. But here is why it matters: Any one of us could wind up in court for one reason or another – accused of a crime or victimized by one, suffering a personal injury or accused of the negligence that caused it. That means virtually everyone has a stake in which standard to apply to expert witnesses in state court.

The issue is widely seen as a battle that pits businesses versus plaintiffs. Businesses tend to favor the Daubert standard because they argue that it does away with so-called “junk science.” However, plaintiffs tend to favor Frye because applying this higher standard of evidence results in higher legal costs, extensive delays and, ultimately, restriction of court access to personal injury clients. There are certainly arguments to the pros and cons of both sides, and the Florida Supreme Court is weighing them after recent hearings. 

The Daubert standard, which federal courts use, is a strict standard for scientific expert testimony that typically requires something of a mini-trial before a judge reaches a decision about whether that expert – and his or her findings and conclusions – can be heard by a juror. Historically, Florida used the Frye standard, which simply asks whether the expert testimony is generally accepted among a given scientific community.

Both of these standards got their names from the respective court cases of which they were born.

Usually, it’s easier for plaintiffs to get helpful expert witness testimony in front of a jury under the Frye standard.

But recent evidence before the Florida Supreme Court added another layer of complexity to this issue: Criminal cases.

There is now an argument that under the Daubert standard, criminal attorneys might be able to hold police crime labs to greater accountability – particularly in cases that involve drug-sniffing dogs or roadside drug sample tests. In arguing for the Daubert system, defense lawyers say that it is in the best interest of justice to keep the standards of expert testimony strict in order to protect the rights of the accused.

However, the argument against the Daubert standard in both criminal and civil cases is that judges do not have the time and resources to evaluate any and all expert witness testimony in every case and that this is the job of jurors. Plus, it’s being noted that Daubert hearings are causing an extreme burden on federal judges, and adding to client attorney bills.

One Florida Supreme Court Justice asked whether the Daubert standard was being misused to keep out, say, ordinary medical testimony in personal injury lawsuits. That question was answered in the affirmative by plaintiffs’ counsel, who say it’s being used as a type of tactical tool that allows defendants to challenge causation even in the most typically straightforward cases.

There is no timeline on when the state high court will rule on this important issue, but you can bet lawyers across the country will be eagerly awaiting a decision.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Expert witness standard takes center stage at Florida Supreme Court, Sept. 1, 2016, By Jim Rosica, SaintPetersBlog.com

More Blog Entries:

Safeco Ins. Co. v. Fridman – Proving Wage Loss Damages After Car Accident, Aug. 22, 2016, Miami Injury Lawyer Blog

Among the injuries some allege they sustained: Broken bones, loss of consciousness, torn ligaments, torn tendons and emotional trauma. One even suffered a fractured spine, according to court records.

The Associated Press reports the plaintiffs include 14 concertgoers as well as three employees. The employees would be unable, per workers’ compensation laws, to sue their own employer, but they could potentially hold third parties accountable if those individuals or entities contributed to their injuries. Attorneys for the plaintiffs insist the defendants – including the performers – didn’t take appropriate precautions to protect the crowd. 

As one plaintiff attorney explained, this was a concert set up on a lawn. There were no chairs and there were no aisles. Further, there was a reported lack of security. The performers were then motioning for the crowd to get closer, and as one lawyer explained, that combination of facts created a serious problem.

The entity that operates the venue announced after the incident that it had “secured” the railing section that had fallen. A representative stated the company was working with authorities as well as its own structural engineers to piece together the cause of the railing collapse, and in the meantime, a safety zone has been established to block a section of space between the crowd (at future concerts) and the railing. Plaintiff’s lawyers said the reconfiguration is a “post accident admission” that the new set-up was the way it should have been structured all along.

Following the accident, the artists were called off stage and the concert had been canceled.

Incidents like this aren’t necessarily common, but there have certainly been enough of them over the years for our Miami personal injury lawyers to know the basic precedent for prevailing. Basically, it comes down to foreseeability. At the core, these types of cases are premises liability, and what the court will want to review evidence that indicates the defendants, as individuals of ordinary intelligence, should have anticipated the dangers that these acts created for others.

Some elements injured parties may want to consider:

• How serious were the injuries incurred? Plaintiffs usually need to be able to show they suffered some degree of damage that affected their daily lives, at least temporarily. Broken bones, a fractured spine and emotional injuries – these are all things that could have short- and long-term consequences.
• What caused the injury? Plaintiffs have to be able to show the defendant was liable. Here, individuals were crushed by the crowd. But what caused the crowd to press forward the way it did? Should the defendants have anticipated this? Where there reasonable actions they might have taken to mitigate that danger?

Miami is a major hot spot for concerts and other live entertainment events. If you are injured at these venues, contact an experienced injury attorney to help you determine whether you have a case.

If you have been injured at a Miami concert, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Lawsuit filed over railing collapse at Snoop Dogg concert, Aug. 24, 2016, By Megan Trimble, Associated Press

More Blog Entries:

Safeco Ins. Co. v. Fridman – Proving Wage Loss Damages After Car Accident, Aug. 22, 2016, Miami Personal Injury Attorney Blog

• How much plaintiff earned before the crash;
• How much plaintiff earned after the crash;
• Whether crash-related injuries and treatment resulted in time away from work;
• Whether crash-related injuries and treatment will result in future time away from work or an inability complete certain tasks. 

Of course, lost wages is just one element of overall damages, but it is often a significant one in a claim, and injury lawyers need to spend a fair amount of time ensuring it is fully explored and aptly presented.

In the recent case of Safeco Ins. Co. v. Fridman, Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal was reviewing the case for the second time, in this instance on remand from the Florida Supreme Court. The state high court had held that in this uninsured/ underinsured motorist action, plaintiff insured is entitled to a jury determination of liability and the full extent of damages – which might be in excess of the policy limits – prior to litigating a first-party bad faith cause of action. That meant a prior ruling from the 5th DCA was quashed. The case was remanded to the appellate court to determine whether trial court erred in denying the insurer’s motion for a mistrial and a new trial and secondly, whether trial court erred in denial of the insurer’s motion for remittitur (reduction of damages). 

As to the first issue, the insurer had argued certain statements made by plaintiff’s attorney were improper and warranted a new trial. The court disagreed with this. However, the appellate panel did rule the lower court was wrong to deny a motion for remittitur on the $1 million damage award when plaintiff’s only proof of lost wages was speculation on how, had he not been injured, he might have succeeded in the short-lived wholesale tile and marble business he started shortly after the crash.

The car accident in question happened in January 2007. He was struck by an uninsured motorist. At the time, plaintiff was 41-years-old and unemployed. Prior tot he incident, he worked as an electronics salesman for several years, earning somewhere between $800-a-week and $1,000-a-week. He also for a time operated a retail tile and marble store, but could not indicate his exact earnings, saying that it was a growing business, but “I don’t remember making a paycheck even.”

Then, soon after the crash, plaintiff opened up a wholesale tile and marble company, which was open just 20 days. The business lost money. Plaintiff insisted he had to close the company because he couldn’t lift the materials as a result of the injury. He then went to work for an electronics store, at which he earned between $400 and $600 weekly. Then he went to a photo company, earning between $500 and $600 weekly. After that, he found a new job at a cash-for-gold firm, at which he earned about $1,200 every week. He still worked there at the time of the trial.

Plaintiff presented evidence to show he couldn’t work for about two weeks after the crash when he needed to have surgery related to the crash. He also provided evidence he would probably need a spinal fusion in the future because of the crash, and that surgery could have him out-of-work for up to four months.

At trial, plaintiff testified he believed he could have in a good year with the wholesale marble and tile company have made up to $200,000. He based this on the assertion that tiles are purchased for 25 cents-a-square-foot and resold for $2-a-square-foot. No other evidence was presented to support this $200,000 annual figure.

Jurors awarded him $1 million, which included $45,000 for previous lost wages and $225,000 for lost future earning capacity. Insurer sought a remittitur, arguing there was not enough evidence to support that level of wage losses.

The appeals court agreed. The court noted that when, as in this case, a plaintiff is earning more after the car accident injury than before, it is not impossible to recover damages for loss of income or future lost earning capacity – but it’s tougher to prove an actual economic loss.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Safeco Ins. Co. v. Fridman, Aug. 12, 2016, Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal

More Blog Entries:

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jakubowicz – Auto Insurance Policy Ambiguous, Aug. 2, 2016, Miami Car Accident Lawyer Blog