HELMS
v.
CECIL PRESCOTT DISTRIBUTORS, INC., ET AL.
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.
Court granted motions to dismiss a third-party complaint because Florida law does not permit contribution between joint tortfeasors, and any negligence by third parties would constitute a defense rather than a basis for indemnification.
A third-party complaint alleging that an accident resulted from the negligence of third parties rather than the original defendants must be dismissed because Florida does not recognize contribution between joint tortfeasors.
[1] In Florida, no cause of action for contribution exists between joint tortfeasors; alleged negligence of third parties constitutes a defense to the original action rather…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn accident occurred involving the original defendants, Cecil Prescott Distributors, Inc. and Herschel G. Edwards, who filed a third-party complaint a…
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 Third-Party Complaint For Contribution cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter coming on before the court on the motions to dismiss the third party complaint filed by the third party defendants, General Motors Corporation and Padrick Chevrolet Co., and the court, having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds as follows —
The third party complaint, in effect, alleges that the accident in question resulted from the negligence of the third party defendants and not from any negligence of the original defendants.
There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors in this state. What is alleged in the third party complaint states a defense against the original suit. If the jury finds that the defendants were guilty of negligence proximately causing the damages complained of, the defendants would have no cause of action over against the third party defendants. On the other hand, if the original defendants are found not to be liable, there would be no loss.
Counsel for the original defendants, and third party plaintiffs, Cecil Prescott Distributors, Inc., and Herschel G. Edwards, announced at the hearing that he would not seek leave to amend his third party action.
It is thereupon ordered and adjudged that the third party defendants’ motions to dismiss the third party complaint are granted, and that the third party defendants, General Motors Corporation and Padrick Chevrolet Co., go hence without day.