SEYMOUR PREMER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1974-10-01
No. 73-1467
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HAV-ERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
300 So. 2d 737 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1974) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The issue of comparative negligence was properly raised and preserved, entitling the plaintiff to a new trial under the Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman v. Jones.


Facts & Procedural History

The case was tried before the Supreme Court of Florida's decision in Hoffman v. Jones, which addressed comparative negligence. The defendant pleaded c…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This cause was tried before a jury between the time of the opinion of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Jones v. Hoffman, Fla.App. 1973, 272 So. 2d 529 and the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida in Hoffman v. Jones, Fla.1973, 280 So. 2d 431, which relate to the propriety of a charge on comparative negligence.

The defendant pleaded, as affirmative defense in the trial court, contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested a charge of comparative negligence, which was denied. At the time of the giving of instructions to the jury, the trial judge instructed on contributory negligence. The plaintiff suffered an adverse jury verdict and this appeal is from a final judgment thereon.

We reverse and remand for a new trial. The issue of comparative negligence was properly made in the trial court; it has been preserved for review on appeal and, under the Supreme Court decision in Hoffman v. Jones, supra, this entitles the plaintiff to a new trial. See also: Butler v. Woolco Department Store, Fla.App.1973, 284 So. 2d 434; Orfaly v. Jeffries, Fla. App.1974, 290 So. 2d 575; Jones v. Flowers, Fla.App.1974, 293 So. 2d 765.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Seymour Premer v. State, 346 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
    …1973), the trial court refused a requested jury charge on comparative negligence. Pursuant to Hoffman v. Jones, supra, 280 So. 2d at 440, this court reversed and remanded for a new trial. See Premer v. State of Florida, Department of Transportation, 300 So. 2d 737 (Fla.3rd DCA, 1974). Thereafter, plaintiff filed an amended complaint realleging the facts upon which the action was based, and alleging each of the defendants was under duty to maintain the sidewalk at said location. Defendants answered, generally…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw