Part 5 of 5: Why the Company Behind the Van Mattered in a $500,000 Bicycle Settlement
This series has followed a case in which a cyclist was struck by a van owned by a commercial service company and driven by one of its employees. The defense blamed our client for the crash. Under Florida’s 51% rule, that argument put his entire recovery at risk. After depositions, in our assessment, the evidence showed the defendants carried more than 50% of the responsibility, and the case settled for $500,000.
In this final post, we cover a part of the case that was present from the first day: the company. When a work vehicle causes a serious crash, the driver is rarely the only responsible party, and often not the party with the resources to pay for catastrophic harm.
Why the Company Matters
An individual driver’s personal auto policy may carry low limits, and many individual drivers have few assets. For someone facing lifelong medical needs, a recovery limited to what the driver personally can pay may cover only a fraction of the harm.
Companies that run vehicle fleets typically carry commercial auto coverage, often with higher limits than personal policies. They also control evidence that individual drivers usually do not: GPS and telematics data, dash camera footage, maintenance records, dispatch and scheduling logs, and personnel files. Identifying the company as a defendant changes both who may pay and what evidence is available.
Theories of Company Liability in Florida
Florida law provides several ways to hold a company responsible when its vehicle and its employee cause a crash. In our case, the claims against the company included each of the following.
Respondeat superior. An employer is generally responsible for the negligence of an employee acting within the course and scope of employment. A service technician driving between job sites during the workday is a common example. The key questions are whether the driver was an employee rather than an independent contractor and whether the driver was doing the company’s work at the time.
The dangerous instrumentality doctrine. Florida has long treated motor vehicles as dangerous instrumentalities. Under this doctrine, the owner of a vehicle who entrusts it to someone else can be held responsible for that person’s negligent operation, even if the owner did nothing wrong itself. Florida has adopted statutory limits for some owners, such as certain rental and leasing companies, so how the doctrine applies depends on who owns the vehicle and how it was being used.
Negligent hiring. An employer can be directly liable if it hired someone it knew or should have known was unfit for the job. For drivers, that may include a poor driving record or prior incidents. Florida law, in section 768.096, gives employers a presumption against negligent hiring if they conducted certain background checks before hiring, so the details of the company’s hiring process matter.
Negligent retention and supervision. An employer can also be liable if it learned during employment that a driver was unfit and kept him on the road anyway, or failed to supervise him adequately. Evidence may include prior complaints, citations, telematics alerts, or incidents the company knew about.
Negligent entrustment. A vehicle owner can be liable for handing its vehicle to someone it knew or should have known was likely to use it dangerously.
A candid note: these direct claims are not always straightforward. Some Florida courts have limited negligent entrustment and hiring evidence when a company admits its employee was acting in the course and scope of employment, on the reasoning that the company is already responsible for the driver’s conduct. How these claims play out depends on the facts and the court.
How Company Liability Interacts With the 51% Rule
Under Florida’s comparative fault law, a jury assigns percentages of fault to each person or company whose conduct contributed to the injury. For the injured person, the critical number is his own percentage. If it is 50% or less, he can recover.
The company’s conduct is part of the full picture of what caused a crash. A company that pushes tight schedules, skips training, or ignores warning signs about a driver can look very different to a jury than a single driver making a single mistake. Developing that evidence helps show where responsibility belongs, and it is part of why the depositions described in Part 4 included the company, not only the driver.
When Injuries Are Catastrophic
Crashes between vehicles and bicycles often cause the most serious kinds of injuries: traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, multiple fractures, and injuries that require months or years of care. Some people never fully return to work or independent living.
In these cases, the value of a claim depends on understanding the full scope of what the injured person will need. That can include future medical care, rehabilitation, in-home or facility care, lost earning capacity, and non-economic harm such as pain, disability, and loss of enjoyment of life. Life care planners, treating physicians, and economists are often needed to document those losses.
HB 837 also changed how medical expenses are proven in Florida. Section 768.0427, Florida Statutes, limits what evidence may be introduced about past and future medical bills, and it can affect how damages are presented. Catastrophic injury cases now require careful attention to how medical costs are documented from the start.
When an Injured Person Cannot Act for Himself
Some catastrophic injuries leave a person unable to communicate, make decisions, or take part in his own case. Florida law provides ways for those claims to move forward.
The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow an incapacitated person to bring a claim through a guardian or, where appropriate, a next friend. Where a guardianship exists, Florida law generally requires court approval before a settlement of the ward’s claim is finalized. The court’s role is to protect the injured person and make sure the settlement serves his interests.
These cases also often require coordination with the family on medical decisions, benefits, and planning for the settlement funds, which may include special needs trusts or other arrangements designed to protect the injured person’s long-term care and eligibility for public benefits.
Bringing the Series Together
The case at the center of this series began as one the defense said was the cyclist’s fault. Under the 51% rule, that argument could have meant no recovery at all. What changed the case was work done early and followed through: preserving the evidence the company controlled, naming the company along with the driver, testing the defense’s version of events under oath, and presenting a full picture of the harm.
It resolved for $500,000.
No court or jury decided fault, and the settlement did not include an admission of liability. But this case shows that the defense’s first account of a crash is not the final word, and that a difficult case can become a strong one when the evidence is developed carefully.
How Licznerski Law, PLLC Handles Commercial Vehicle Cases
Licznerski Law, PLLC is a boutique firm. We take a selective number of cases so that your attorney works on your case directly, from the preservation demands through depositions and resolution.
We will be candid about the risks, including the 51% rule and the limits on some claims against companies. When the facts support it, we identify every responsible party and build the evidence needed to hold them accountable, as we did in the case that settled for $500,000.
We represent injured people and their families throughout the Tampa Bay area, including Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and Hernando Counties, and in communities such as Tampa, Oldsmar, Clearwater, St. Petersburg, New Port Richey, Brooksville, and Spring Hill, as well as statewide.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue a company if its employee hit me with a work vehicle?
Often, yes. An employer is generally responsible for an employee’s negligence while the employee is doing the company’s work. The company may also be responsible as the vehicle’s owner or for its own negligence in hiring, supervising, or entrusting the vehicle to the driver.
What is the dangerous instrumentality doctrine?
It is a Florida doctrine that can make a vehicle owner responsible for the negligent operation of its vehicle by someone it allowed to use it. Some owners, such as certain rental and leasing companies, have statutory limits on that liability.
What if the driver was an independent contractor?
Employer liability is generally more limited for independent contractors, but the company may still be responsible in some situations, such as if it owned the vehicle or controlled the work. The details of the relationship matter.
What evidence does a company usually have after a crash?
Commercial vehicles and fleets often have GPS and telematics data, dash camera footage, maintenance records, scheduling and dispatch records, and driver personnel files. A preservation demand should be sent early so that evidence is not lost.
What happens if the injured person cannot make decisions for himself?
Florida law allows a guardian or, in some circumstances, a next friend to pursue the claim on the injured person’s behalf. Where a guardianship exists, a settlement generally requires court approval.
How are future medical costs proven in a catastrophic injury case?
Usually through treating physicians, life care planners, and economists who project future care needs and costs. Florida’s section 768.0427 also governs what evidence of medical expenses can be presented.
What did the case in this series settle for?
It settled for $500,000.
Disclaimer: The result described here was obtained in a specific matter based on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case. Every case is different, and the outcome of any matter depends on its particular facts and the applicable law. The settlement did not include any admission of liability. This post is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Read the full series:
Part 1: $500,000 Settlement for a Cyclist Who Was Blamed for His Own Crash
Part 2: Florida’s 51% Rule: How Being Blamed Can Wipe Out Your Recovery
Part 3: How Insurance Companies Build a Fault Case Against Cyclists
Part 4: How Depositions Shifted Fault Back to the Defendants
Part 5: When a Work Vehicle Causes Catastrophic Injury: Holding the Company Responsible
Talk to an Attorney
If you or someone you love was seriously injured in a crash involving a company van, truck, or other work vehicle anywhere in the Tampa Bay area, contact Licznerski Law, PLLC.
Licznerski Law, PLLC
Phone: 813-934-3519
Email: [email protected]
Web: licznerskilaw.com
Boutique Representation. Real Results. Your Attorney, Not a Case Number.