THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF WORKERS FOR THE BLIND, INC., D/B/A LIGHTHOUSE FOR THE BLIND, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARETH GUILLAUME, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Association of Workers for the Blind appealed a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a negligence case. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly removed the comparative negligence issue from the jury because the defendant presented no evidence supporting that defense.
The trial court properly determined that the comparative negligence issue should not have been submitted to the jury because the defendant presented no evidence tending to prove comparative negligence. Where there is no evidence of comparative negligence, the issue becomes a question of law rather than fact and should not go to the jury.
[1] A defendant alleging comparative negligence as an affirmative defense bears the burden of proving it.
[2] A defendant must present evidence that the plaintiff breached their own duty of care and that such breach proximately caused the plaintiff's damages to establish comparat…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“where there is no evidence tending to prove comparative negligence, the issue should not be submitted to the jury”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that comparative negligence must be supported by evidence to be submitted to the jury
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff (Florida Association of Workers for the Blind) sued the defendant (Margareth Guillaume) for negligence. The defendant raised comparative…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Question Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order awarding plaintiff a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court properly determined that defendant presented no evidence of comparative negligence and that the issue should not have been submitted to the jury.
In its order the trial court found:
1) Having alleged comparative negligence as an affirmative defense, the Defendant bore the burden of proving said comparative negligence.
2) The Defendant presented no evidence tending to prove comparative negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. That is to say, Defendant presented no evidence that Plaintiff breached her own duty of care to herself and that such breach was the proximate cause of the damages Plaintiff sustained.
3) Since no evidence existed tending to prove comparative negligence, the issue of comparative negligence should not have been submitted to the jury.
4) Plaintiffs objection to the submission to the jury of a comparative negligence verdict form was timely and put the Court on notice of Plaintiffs objection to the issue of comparative negligence therein preserving this issue for review.
5) Inasmuch as the Court finds that Defendant presented no evidence of comparative negligence, the Court finds that reasonable persons could come to but one conclusion and that the issue of comparative negligence becomes a question of law and should not have been submitted to the jury.
It is well-settled law that “where there is no evidence tending to prove comparative negligence, the issue should not be submitted to the jury.” Coulter v. American Bakeries Co., 530 So. 2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Cuadros v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 604 So. 2d 861, 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Borenstein v. Raskin, 401 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In this case, there was no evidence that Plaintiff was negligent. Thus, it was error to submit the issue to the jury; affirmance is required.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Borenstein v. Raskin, 401 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Coulter v. Am. Bakeries Co., 530 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Cuadros v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 604 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)