Switch to ADA Accessible Website
Orlando Criminal Lawyer
call for a free
consultation

Synthetic Marijuana Case Involving Split Fault Between Defendant & Manufacturer Goes to Florida Supreme Court

shutterstock_1034253808

The Florida Supreme Court could soon hear an interesting case that involves criminal charges related to drug and homicide charges, as well as product liability issues, and how they overlap in terms of determining fault in cases where defendants were under the influence of a substance. There is no question that the outcome could be significantly determinative for both areas of law and criminal defendants who are accused of crimes while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

The Case

The case involves a car accident allegedly caused by a man who was high on synthetic marijuana (known as “spice”), who ran into a car, and, in the process, killed three people while he was under the influence of the substance. The product was marketed as potpourri and labeled “not for human consumption.”

Trial Court Finds Manufacturer 65% At Fault & Defendant 35% At Fault

While the driver has already been convicted of vehicular homicide, the families of the victims also filed a civil lawsuit against both the driver (defendant) and the company that produces the synthetic marijuana (DZE Corp), with a Leon County jury finding that manufacturer DZE was actually 65 percent at fault and the defendant was only 35 percent at fault for the accident that resulted in the deaths.

First District Court of Appeal Reverses

However, the First District Court of Appeal reversed this decision and found that the manufacturer should not be held liable, finding that the defendant’s criminal conduct was the sole proximate cause of the deaths under Florida state law because he voluntarily consumed the product, became intoxicated, and illegally decided to drive. The appeals court indicated that the issue was a matter of law, and should not have been left to the jury as the fact-finder because it involves deciding what was the sole superseding proximate cause of the accident that resulted in the deaths, where the facts are “unequivocal” and “the evidence supports no more than a single inference.” The court concluded, therefore, that the trial court never should have allowed a jury (instead of a judge) to decide on the issue.

The families of the accident victims have now requested that the Florida Supreme Court review this decision, arguing that it expressly conflicts with a decision of another court on the same question of law.

If You Are Facing Criminal Charges or Have Product Liability Questions in Florida Contact the Baez Law Firm

If you are facing criminal charges in Florida, or have any questions about serious bodily injury that results from consumer products that endanger the safety of consumers, contact The Baez Law Firm. As both highly experienced and lauded Orlando criminal defense attorneys and civil litigators, we have the superior forensic science knowledge to benefit our client.

 

Resource:

efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2020/1280/2020-1280_notice_89862_notice2ddiscretionary20juris2028direct20conflict29.pdf

miami.cbslocal.com/2020/08/29/synthetic-marijuana-case-goes-to-florida-supreme-court/

https://www.baezlawfirm.com/florida-senate-moves-to-block-initiative-to-decriminalize-recreational-marijuana-before-florida-supreme-court/

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Miami

Miami Office

1200 Brickell Avenue #1410
Miami, FL 33131
Office: 305-999-5100
Fax: 305-999-5111
Orlando

Orlando Office

23 South Osceola Avenue
Orlando, FL 32801
Office: 407-705-2626
Fax: 407-705-2625

Email Us

Fields Marked * Are required

Captcha Image

DISCLAIMER: Completing and submitting this form or otherwise merely contacting The Baez Law Firm or any individual at the firm will not establish an attorney/client relationship. Our firm cannot represent you until we determine that there would be no conflict of interest and that we are otherwise able to accept representation of your case. Please do not send any information or documents until a formal attorney/client relationship has been established through an interview with an attorney and you have been given authorization in the form of an engagement letter with The Baez Law Firm. Any information or documents sent via this form or otherwise prior to your receipt of an engagement letter will not be treated as confidences, secrets, or protected information of any nature. Submitting information regarding your potential case will not bar The Baez Law Firm from representing or continuing to represent a person or entity whose interest are adverse to your in condition with your case.

DISCLAIMER: This website contains information about The Baez Law Firm that includes testimonial statements from persons who are familiar with the firm's services. The testimonials shown are not necessarily representative of every person's experience with us. Testimonials from every client are not provided. As no two situations or persons are identical, the facts and circumstances of your situation may differ from those for which testimonials are shown. This website also includes information about some of the past results that we have obtained for our clients. Not all results are provided, and the results shown are not necessarily representative of all results obtained by us. No two situation are exactly alike; every person's situation is unique and the outcome for each person depends on the individual facts.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
MileMark Media - Practice Growth Solutions

© 2015 - 2020 Baez Law Firm. All rights reserved.
This law firm website and legal marketing are managed by MileMark Media.

Contact Form Tab Contact Form Tab