JOHN PATRICK GILMORE ET UX., APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS SIDNEY MORRISON ET AL., APPELLEES; THOMAS SIDNEY MORRISON ET AL., APPELLANTS, V. JOHN PATRICK GILMORE 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.
In this consolidated appeal, the court reversed the trial court's reduction of a non-negligent plaintiff-passenger's recovery based on the driver-plaintiff's contributory negligence. The court held that under Florida law, a plaintiff-passenger who is found not negligent cannot have her recovery reduced by the negligence of the driver of the vehicle, as this would improperly impute the driver's negligence to the passenger and violate the rule against contribution among tort-feasors.
The court held that the trial court erred in reducing the non-negligent plaintiff-wife's recovery by 50 percent based on the plaintiff-husband's negligence. The jury verdict entered in favor of the plaintiff-wife is reinstated, and the final judgment is modified accordingly.
[1] A trial court errs in reducing a non-negligent passenger's recovery by the proportion of the driver's negligence.
[2] The negligence of a plaintiff-driver cannot be imputed to a non-negligent plaintiff-passenger.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the trial court erred in reducing the non-negligent plaintiff-passenger's recovery by the proportion of the plaintiff-driver's negligence”
States the core legal error—that a non-negligent passenger cannot have recovery reduced by the driver's negligence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff-husband and plaintiff-wife (a passenger in his vehicle) brought suit against Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Morrison, the operator of a bus, …
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 Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon review of the briefs and oral argument and upon due consideration of the record in these consolidated appeals we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been made to appear except as to that portion of the final judgment wherein the trial court reduced the jury verdict entered in favor of the plaintiff-wife.
In the proceedings below instituted by the plaintiff-husband and plaintiff-wife (a passenger in the automobile driven by the plaintiff-husband) against Greyhound Lines, Inc., and defendant Morrison, the operator of a bus involved in a collision with the plaintiff car, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The jury also found that the percentage of negligence of the plaintiff -husband and defendant Morrison to be 50 per cent each. The trial court reduced the judgments entered in favor of the plaintiff-husband and plaintiff-wife by 50 per cent.
For the reasons more fully discussed in the recent decisions of this court and our sister court we are of the opinion that the trial court erred in reducing the non-negligent plaintiff-passenger’s recovery by the proportion of the plaintiff-driver’s negligence. Maybarduk v. Bustamante, Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 374; Stuart v. Hertz Corporation, Fla.App.1974, 302 So. 2d 187; Echeverria v. Barczak, Fla.App. 1975, 308 So. 2d 633; and Acevedo v. Acosta, Fla.App.1974, 296 So. 2d 526. To hold otherwise would impute the negligence of the plaintiff-husband to the plaintiff-wife (evidence of which is not found herein), and would disregard the rule of no contribution between tort-feasors in Florida.
Accordingly, the jury verdict entered in favor of the plaintiff-wife is reinstated and the final judgment modified to the extent therewith; in all other respects the final judgment is affirmed.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., DE MANIO, PETER M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gilmore v. Morrison, 341 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…entered judgment in her favor for $112,500. On a prior appeal from the original judgment we held that the trial court had erred in reducing the non-negligent wife’s recovery by the proportion of her husband-driver’s negligence. Gilmore v. Morrison, 314 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). We held that “. . . the jury verdict entered in favor of the plaintiff-wife is reinstated and the final judgment modified to the extent therewith; in all other respects the final judgment is affirmed.” Upon receipt of the manda…
Authorities Cited
- Frank M. Stuart, M.D., P.A. v. The HERTZ Corp., 302 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Maybarduk v. Bustamante, 294 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Acevedo v. Justo L. Acosta, 296 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Echeverria v. Barczak, 308 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)