BONDED TRANSPORTATION, INC., A CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
EBBIN A. LEE AND JOYCE JACQUELYN LEE, HUSBAND AND WIFE, 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 court held that the issue of comparative negligence cannot be raised for the first time on appellate review.
The First District Court of Appeal allowed the issue of comparative negligence to be raised for the first time on appeal, relying on its prior decisio…
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 Raising Issues For The First Time On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Chief Justice.
This is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to the First District Court of Appeal from its decision reported at 308 So. 2d 157 (Fla.App. 1st, 1975). That decision conflicts with Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973), and CNA Insurance v. Minton, 334 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1976). We have jurisdiction.1
The First District, relying on its previous decision in Fitzsimmons v. City of Pensacola, 297 So. 2d 107 (Fla.App. 1st, 1974), held the issue of comparative negligence to have been properly made a question for appellate review where it was raised for the first time in appellate briefs. CNA Insurance v. Minton, supra, dictates the opposite result:
“The rule could not have been properly or appropriately made a question of review unless the applicability of the rule had been raised at the trial level before or during the trial thereof.” Id. at 258.
Likewise, initial argument for application of comparative negligence on motion for new trial, as the parties here allege occurred, will not support application of the rule.
The decision of the First District is quashed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent herewith. Fitzsim-mons v. City of Pensacola, supra, is disapproved insofar as it conflicts with our decisions herein.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., dissents.
. Fla.Const. Art. V, § 3(b)(3) (1972).
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)
- CNA Ins. v. Minton, 334 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1976)
- Ebbin A. LEE and Joyce Jacquelyn Lee v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 308 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)