HERMAN E. MINTON AND DIANE MINTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CNA INSURANCE, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 court held that the doctrine of comparative negligence, adopted in Hoffman v. Jones, applies to cases on appeal where its applicability was properly raised.
[1] A new trial may be granted on appeal when the appellate court adopts a new rule of law that is applicable to cases on appeal where the issue has been properly raised.
[2] A judgment entered before the adoption of comparative negligence will be reversed and remanded for a new trial if the applicability of comparative negligence was properly…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued for damages from an automobile accident, alleging negligent driving by the defendant. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, …
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 Property Damage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants filed an action against the appellees for damages resulting from an automobile accident. The plaintiff Herman E. Minton sought compensatory damages for his personal injuries and property damage to his automobile, alleged to have been proximately caused by the negligent driving by the defendant Carrillo of a motor vehicle owned by the defendant Dade County, his employer. The plaintiff Diane Minton, the wife of Herman Min-ton, joined in the action, claiming derivative damages. The defendants pleaded contributory negligence of both plaintiffs. Upon trial of the cause before a jury, on issues of negligence and contributory negligence, a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendants. Judgment was entered thereon on June 18, 1973. Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial was heard and denied on July 10, 1973, and the plaintiffs appealed from the judgment.
On July 10, 1973, the Supreme Court decided the case of Hoffman v. Jones, Fla. 1973, 280 So. 2d 431, in which the doctrine of comparative negligence was adopted. Included in the circumstances in which the Court therein held the opinion in that case shall be applied was the following:
“4. As to those cases on appeal in which the applicability of the comparative negligence rule has been properly and appropriately made a question of appellate review, this opinion shall be applicable.”
The appellants invoked the benefit of Hoffman v. Jones, supra, by an assignment of error, and based thereon have argued in their brief for reversal and new trial on the doctrine of comparative negligence, as being the applicable law controlling on the case now on appeal. In that posture of this case upon appeal, as provided for in the above quoted portion of the opinion in Hoffman v. Jones, supra, the rule of law announced in that decision is applicable. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for new trial on the basis provided for in Hoffman v. Jones, supra. Cf. Florida. East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse, Fla.1967, 194 So. 2d 260.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1966)