LUKE RADER, M.D. AND THE EMPLOYERS FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
VARIETY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AND THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Supreme Court vacated and remanded a District Court of Appeal decision that had upheld dismissal of a contribution claim between joint tortfeasors, because the Florida Legislature had enacted the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act during the pendency of the appeal, which abrogated the prior rule against contribution.
The prior rule prohibiting contribution among joint tortfeasors is abrogated by the newly enacted Florida Statute Section 768.31 (Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act), which applies to pending causes of action and cases filed after its effective date.
[1] A statute providing for contribution among joint tortfeasors applies to causes of action pending at the time of its passage.
[2] A court should remand a case for further consideration in light of newly enacted legislation and relevant judicial interpretations.
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“Respondents moved to dismiss the action on the ground that contribution between joint tortfeasors could not be ordered under the laws of this state.”
Establishes the legal principle that was the basis for dismissal at the time.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Luke Rader and Variety Children's Hospital were found jointly and severally liable for medical malpractice damages in a suit brought by Josephina …
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 Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari granted to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 293 So. 2d 778, Fla.App., which purported conflicts with Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Constitution of Florida.
Petitioner, Rader, a physician, and Respondent Hospital had been defendants in a malpractice suit brought against them by Josephina Osle. They were found to be jointly and severally liable for damages in the malpractice suit. Subsequently, the petitioners, physician and his insurance corn- pany, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court seeking contribution from the hospital and its insurance company. Respondents moved to dismiss the action on the ground that contribution between joint tortfeasors could not be ordered under the laws of this state. The motion was granted with leave to amend and, thereafter, the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The District Court of Appeal affirmed finding no merit to petitioner’s argument that the reasoning of Hoffman v. Jones, supra, required abrogation of the rule of “no contribution” among joint tortfeasors.
Since the filing of the petition sub ju-dice, the Florida Legislature enacted Section 768.31, Florida Statutes, the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act which provides that it shall be applicable to all causes of action pending at the time of its passage wherein the rights of contribution among joint tortfeasors are involved and cases filed after the effective date of the law, and following which, this Court rendered an interpretive decision on the statute in Lincenberg v. Issen et al., 318 So. 2d 386 (Fla.1975), rehearing denied October 8, 1975.
Accordingly, the decision of the District Court of Appeal under review is vacated and the cause is remanded for further consideration in light of Section 768.31, Florida Statutes, and Lincenberg v. Issen, supra.1
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., BOYD, J., and RUDD and HARDING, Circuit Judges, concur. . Cf. Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1967); Carr v. Crosby Builders Supply Co., Inc., 283 So. 2d 60 (Fla. App. 4, 1973), and Hoffman v. Jones, supra. In Hoffman, this court determined that its decision adopting comparative negligence would be applicable to: “1. As to those cases in which the comparative negligence rule has been applied, this opinion shall be applicable.
2. As to those cases already commenced, but in which trial has not yet begun, this opinion shall be applicable.
3. As to those cases in which trial has already begun or in which verdict or judgment has already been rendered, this opinion shall not be applicable, unless the applicability of the comparative negligence rule was appropriately and properly raised during some state of the litigation.
4. As to those eases 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.
5. This opinion shall be applicable to all cases commenced after the decision becomes final.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Variety Child's. Hosp., Inc. v. Perkins, 382 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…a “purchaser pendente lite.” Several of the cases cited as to the meaning of the word “pending” deal with the question of whether procedural rules or a change in the law would affect a case “pending” on appeal, Rader v. Variety Children’s Hospitai, 323 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1975); Lincenberg v. Issen, 318 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1975); Perzinski v. Chevron Chemical Co., 503 F. 2d 654 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Claus, 5 F.R.D. 278 (E.D.N.Y.1946); Larson v. Fetherston, 44 Wis.2d 712, 172 N.W. 2d 20 (1969). Others c…
-
Nadio & Livio Christiani & Reserve Ins. Co. v. Popovich, 363 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…n the Contribution Act became effective June 12, 1975, the Act is applicable to these appeals notwithstanding that contribution issues were not pleaded or otherwise raised when the case was pending before trial. Rader v. Variety Children’s Hospital, 323 So. 2d 564 (Fla.1975), conformed to, 328 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), and 328 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Warn Industries v. Geist, 343 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 680 (Fla.1977). See also Lincenberg v. Issen, 318 So. 2d 386 (Fl…
-
Luke Rader, M.D. v. Variety Child's. Hosp., 328 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. The opinion and decision of this court in this cause, reported at 293 So. 2d 778, has been vacated by the Supreme Court of Florida. See Rader v. Variety Children’s Hospital, Fla.1975, 323 So. 2d 564. In its opinion, the Supreme Court ordered: “The cause is remanded for further consideration in light of Section 768.31, Florida Statutes, and Lincenberg v. Issen, Fla.1975, 318 So. 2d 386.” In order to effectuate the further consideration ordered,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1966)
- Lincenberg v. Issen, 318 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1975)
- Luke Rader, M.D. v. Variety Child's. Hosp., 293 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Carr v. Crosby Builders Supply Co., Inc., 283 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)