JEANNE HOTALING, APPELLANT,
v.
PLANTATION ATHLETIC LEAGUE 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.
This appeal challenges a jury verdict for defendants in a personal injury case. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial because the jury was instructed under the old doctrine of contributory negligence rather than the newly-established doctrine of comparative negligence prescribed by Hoffman v. Jones.
Where a case on appeal raises the propriety of comparative negligence by assignment of error, it falls within category four of Hoffman v. Jones and the comparative negligence rule applies, requiring a new trial that eliminates the doctrine of contributory negligence.
[1] A case is subject to the rule of comparative negligence on appeal if the applicability of comparative negligence was properly and appropriately made a question of appella…
[2] Raising the propriety of comparative negligence for the first time by assignment of error makes the question available for appellate review.
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 intelligence“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.”
This establishes category four of Hoffman v. Jones, under which this case qualifies for comparative negligence review on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Hotaling filed suit for personal injuries against the Plantation Athletic League and other defendants. A jury returned a verdict in favor of…
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 Comparative Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
We have for review a final judgment based upon a jury verdict for defendant-appellees arising out of a suit for personal injuries.
During the charge conference appellant moved to. strike the affirmative defenses including contributory negligence on several grounds, one of which “alluded” to the decision of Jones v. Hoffman, which was then pending in the Supreme Court. But whether that “allusion” was adequate to fall within category number three of Hoffman v. Jones, Fla.1973, 280 So. 2d 431, and thus preserve for appellate review appellant’s right to a comparative negligence instruction we need not decide. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed May 17, 1973. One of her assignments of error is directed to the giving of an instruction on contributory negligence rather than comparative negligence.
Thus, it is apparent that this case falls within category number four of Hoffman v. Jones, supra, which provides:
“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 Third District Court of Appeal recently held in Minton v. CNA Insurance, Fla. App.1974, 293 So. 2d 742, that raising the propriety of comparative negligence for the first time by assignment of error “properly and appropriately” made the question available for appellate review. And more recently the First District Court of Appeal in Fitzsimmons v. City of Pensacola, Fla.App.1974, 297 So. 2d 107, held that raising the point for the first time in appellant’s main brief was sufficient. Accordingly, Hoffman v. Jones, supra, mandates that this case must be tried again, eliminating therefrom the doctrine of contributory negligence.
Reversed.
WALDEN, J., and KNOTT, JAMES R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Fitzsimmons v. City OF Pensacola, 297 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Wilson v. Long Island Ins. Co., 293 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)