Comparative Fault

414 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Howard A. Engle, M.D. v. Liggett Grp., Inc.
  945 So. 2d 1246· Fla.· 2006-12-21 ·cited 544×
  This landmark case addresses the decertification of a nationwide tobacco class action and reverses a $145 billion punitive damages award while reinstating most compensatory damages to two of three class representatives. The Florida Supreme Court held that the Florida Settlement A
• Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas
  110 So. 3d 419· Fla.· 2013-03-14 ·cited 128×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed that the Phase I findings from the Engle class action tobacco litigation have res judicata effect in individual damages actions, allowing class members to establish the defendants' common liability without relitigating conduct and defect element
• Liggett Grp. Inc. v. Howard A. Engle, M.D.
  853 So. 2d 434· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-05-21 ·cited 104×
  The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a massive class action judgment against tobacco companies, decertifying the smokers' class and reversing a $145 billion punitive damages award. The court held that certification of smokers' class actions violates predominance and superi
• Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
  908 So. 2d 459· Fla.· 2005-07-07 ·cited 103×
  The Florida Supreme Court answered four certified questions from the Eleventh Circuit regarding comparative fault apportionment to vicariously liable parties and the enforceability of municipal indemnification agreements under Florida sovereign immunity law. The Court held that c
• Goldberg v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  899 So. 2d 1105· Fla.· 2005-04-07 ·cited 78×
  Florida Power & Light (FPL) terminated electrical power to a traffic signal while repairing a downed power line, causing the signal to malfunction. When a motor vehicle collision at the now-uncontrolled intersection killed 12-year-old Jill Goldberg, a jury awarded $37 million in
• Fitzgerald v. Texaco, Inc.
  521 F.2d 448· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-25 ·cited 77×
  The dissent argues that the forum non conveniens doctrine should not apply to dismiss the case, asserting that justice requires retaining jurisdiction in American courts.
• Merrill Crossings Assocs. v. McDONALD
  705 So. 2d 560· Fla.· 1997-12-04 ·cited 73×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that an action alleging negligent failure to provide adequate security, resulting in an intentional criminal assault by a third party, is an action "based upon an intentional tort" under Florida Statutes § 768.81(4)(b) and therefore falls outside th
• Martinez v. Dixie Carriers, Inc.
  529 F.2d 457· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 72×
  The court held that DuPont did not breach its duty to warn, as the workers were experienced professionals aware of the product's dangers, and the barge was unseaworthy due to inadequate equipment and procedures, not the product's warnings.
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Jimmie Lee Brown to the Estate of Roger Brown
  70 So. 3d 707· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-09-21 ·cited 71×
  This case addresses how the Florida Supreme Court's jury findings from the landmark Engle class action tobacco case should be applied in subsequent individual lawsuits by class members. The Fourth District holds that Engle findings establish the conduct elements of negligence and
• Colletta P. Clampitt v. D.J. Spencer Sales
  786 So. 2d 570· Fla.· 2001-05-10 ·cited 70×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a district court decision that had overturned summary judgment in a rear-end collision case. The Court held that a sudden stop alone is insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption of negligence attaching to the rear driver, and affirmed t
• Manning v. M/V "SEA Road"
  417 F.2d 603· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-16 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the shipowner's violation of a safety regulation, resulting in the vessel's unseaworthiness, was the proximate cause of the employee's injury.
• Barton Protective Servs., Inc. v. Faber
  745 So. 2d 968· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-07-21 ·cited 69×
  A shopping mall security company (Barton) was held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest as a willful participant in joint action with police officers who arrested two men without probable cause. The court affirmed the liability finding but reversed the trial court's app
• Hyde v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
  697 F.2d 614· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 66×
  The court held that a defective staircase on an offshore platform constitutes a 'ruin' under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2322, making the owner strictly liable for injuries caused by its collapse. It also held that under recent Louisiana Supreme Court precedent, a plaintiff's co
• D'Amario v. Ford Motor Co.
  806 So. 2d 424· Fla.· 2001-11-21 ·cited 65×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that principles of comparative fault do not ordinarily apply to crashworthiness (secondary collision/enhanced injury) cases, and that a manufacturer's liability for injuries caused by design defects in a collision is separate and distinct from liabi
• Theriot v. BAY Drilling Corp.
  783 F.2d 527· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying state law to a maritime indemnity contract, and that the plaintiff's seaman status was a question for the jury. The court affirmed the negligence findings but reversed and remanded on the indemnity issue.
• Fortier v. Dona Anna Plaza P'rs
  747 F.2d 1324· 10th Cir.· 1984-12-17 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Act does not extend to solvent co-defendants of the debtor, and that evidentiary rulings were either waived, cured, or did not affect substantial rights.
• Pan-Alaska Fisheries, Inc. v. Marine Constr. & Design Co.
  565 F.2d 1129· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-13 ·cited 58×
  Strict products liability is applicable in admiralty, and comparative fault principles can be applied to reduce damages in such claims.
• Allied Chem. Corp. v. Hess Tankship Co. OF Del.
  661 F.2d 1044· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-20 ·cited 57×
  The court held that both the SOCRATES and REFINER were equally at fault for the collision due to their respective violations of navigational rules and failure to exercise due care in foggy conditions.
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Earline Alexander
  90 So. 3d 307· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-02-14 ·cited 56×
  In this Engle progeny tobacco case, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a $10.8 million compensatory damages award for the death of a long-time smoker from lung cancer but reversed and remanded the $40.8 million punitive damages award as constitutionally excessive under t
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Schoeff
  178 So. 3d 487· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-11-04 ·cited 55×
  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company appeals a jury verdict in favor of the estate of James Schoeff, a deceased smoker who died of lung cancer allegedly caused by addiction to cigarettes. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's judgment on most issues but reverses
• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. McDONALD
  676 So. 2d 12· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-06-11 ·cited 54×
  In this premises liability case, Wal-Mart Stores and Merrill Crossings Associates were held liable for damages when Lawrence McDonald was shot by an unknown assailant in a shopping center parking lot. The court affirmed the jury's apportionment of negligence and held that an inte
• Loose v. Offshore Navigation, Inc.
  670 F.2d 493· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 52×
  A jury verdict must be set aside if the seaman's lawyer improperly invoked the 'Golden Rule' in closing arguments, and indemnity issues must be reconsidered under comparative fault principles, not active-passive negligence.
• Joyce v. Atl. Richfield Co.
  651 F.2d 676· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-26 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to provide separate jury instructions and findings for the claim of failure to provide swift and adequate medical care, necessitating a retrial on all Jones Act claims, but affirmed the liability determination under the unseawo
• Avery v. Maremont Corp.
  628 F.2d 441· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-20 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the manufacturer was not entitled to a 50% reduction of the judgment based on a prior settlement with a negligent installer, but the judgment must be reduced by the settlement amount. The court also affirmed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the dece
• United States v. Gavagan
  280 F.2d 319· 5th Cir.· 1960-07-22 ·cited 50×
  The Government is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligent acts or omissions in the coordination of a maritime rescue operation, even if the activity is uniquely governmental.
• Tenn. Valley Sand & Gravel Co. v. M/V Delta
  598 F.2d 930· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-11 ·cited 49×
• Norwilton Murray v. Fairbanks Morse
  610 F.2d 149· 3d Cir.· 1979-11-29 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the Virgin Islands comparative negligence statute could be applied to strict products liability actions to reduce damages based on plaintiff's fault, and that the jury's damage award was not excessive.
• W. Pac. Fisheries, Inc. v. SS President Grant
  730 F.2d 1280· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-11 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the Major-Minor Fault Rule is abolished and that prejudgment interest should be awarded at a rate reflecting market conditions, specifically the yield on 52-week U.S. Treasury bills.
• Selma Gross v. Lyons
  721 So. 2d 304· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-05-13 ·cited 44×
  In this personal injury case arising from a rear-end collision, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court's jury instruction regarding a subsequent accident was an incomplete and misleading statement of the law on appo
• McLAUGHLIN v. Trelleborgs Angfartygs A/B
  408 F.2d 1334· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-30 ·cited 44×
  A shipowner is entitled to indemnity from a stevedore employer when the stevedore's employee is contributorily negligent, even if the shipowner also contributed to the injury.
• George H. Gele (Mrs. Patricia Kellog Gele v. Wilson
  616 F.2d 146· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-28 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the district court's allocation of comparative fault was not clearly erroneous and that interest on the judgment against one party properly ran from the date of the second judgment on remand, as the appellate mandate did not specify an earlier date.
• Dorine Herndon v. Seven BAR Flying Serv., Inc.
  716 F.2d 1322· 10th Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the trial court's disposition, agreeing that the defendant's liability was limited to its apportioned share of damages, despite a settlement agreement.
• Darel K. Hardin v. Manitowoc-Forsythe Corp.
  691 F.2d 449· 10th Cir.· 1982-10-05 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while Kansas law permits comparison of fault with 'phantom parties' in strict liability cases, the trial court abused its discretion by including Lummus Company as a phantom party without sufficient evidence or fair opportunity for the plaintiff to defend. How
• Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp.
  177 So. 3d 489· Fla.· 2015-10-29 ·cited 41×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Third District Court of Appeal's decision to overturn a jury verdict against Union Carbide in an asbestos mesothelioma case, holding that Florida continues to apply the Second Restatement's consumer expectations test for design defects in st
• Reyes v. Vantage S.S. Co., Inc.
  558 F.2d 238· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-26 ·cited 41×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority incorrectly found the shipowner's negligence to be a legal cause of the decedent's death and that the sale of beer did not render the ship unseaworthy or constitute negligence.
• Gouty v. Schnepel
  795 So. 2d 959· Fla.· 2001-09-13 ·cited 40×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that settlement proceeds from a settling defendant cannot be set off against a judgment for economic damages unless the settling defendant is found to be jointly and severally liable for those damages. The court rejected the First District's interpr
• Dabney v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  761 F.2d 494· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Montgomery Ward's requests for destructive testing, a jury transcript, and remittitur, and correctly interpreted Iowa law regarding comparative fault and prejudgment interest.
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Marvine Calloway
  201 So. 3d 753· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-09-23 ·cited 39×
  In this tobacco products liability case, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a multi-million dollar judgment against tobacco companies and remanded for a new trial, holding that plaintiff's counsel's numerous inflammatory and improper closing arguments created a
• Bakerman v. THE Bombay Co., Inc.
  961 So. 2d 259· Fla.· 2007-06-21 ·cited 39×
  The Florida Supreme Court clarified that concealment of danger is not a required element of the intentional tort exception to workers' compensation immunity. The Court quashed the Third District's decision that had reversed a jury verdict against Bombay Company by incorrectly add
• Lewis v. Timco, Inc.
  716 F.2d 1425· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-27 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the doctrine of comparative fault applies in products liability suits maintained under the maritime jurisdiction of federal courts, even when liability is based on strict liability.
• Shipp v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  750 F.2d 418· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-14 ·cited 38×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of defective roof design and producing cause, and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings regarding demonstrative evidence.
• Wilfredo Acosta v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
  717 F.2d 828· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-21 ·cited 38×
  Punitive damages may be awarded in strict products liability cases under Virgin Islands law, but require proof of outrageous conduct by clear and convincing evidence.
• In re the Complaint of Sincere Navigation Corp. v. United States
  529 F.2d 744· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Moragne wrongful death remedy should be applied retroactively and precludes the recognition of state wrongful death statutes in admiralty, and that the Reliable Transfer rule of comparative fault should also be applied retroactively.
• Bass v. Phoenix Seadrill/78, Ltd.
  749 F.2d 1154· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-10 ·cited 37×
  The court held that a district court cannot void portions of a seaman's settlement agreement based solely on perceived inadequacy of consideration or a general deterrent effect on other settlements, absent a showing of plain legal prejudice to non-settling parties or lack of info
• Royal Mende Basel & Steven Kane as Co-Plenary Guardians of the person & Prop. of Mark Victor Basel v. McFARLAND & Sons, Inc.
  815 So. 2d 687· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-04-05 ·cited 36×
  Royal Basel and Steven Kane, as guardians of Mark Basel who suffered severe permanent brain damage in a 1994 vehicle accident, appealed the trial court's application of the October 1, 1999 amendment to section 768.81 (limiting joint and several liability) to their pre-amendment c
• Wheeler v. John Deere Co.
  862 F.2d 1404· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-02 ·cited 36×
  The court held that admitting evidence of other accidents to impeach an expert without a finding of substantial similarity, and admitting evidence of subsequent design changes after a stipulation of feasibility, constituted reversible error.
• Flowers v. Savannah Mach. & Foundry Co.
  310 F.2d 135· 5th Cir.· 1962-11-21 ·cited 36×
  In admiralty actions by shore workers asserting vicarious seaman status for maritime injuries, the analogous limitation period for laches should be the three-year period under the Jones Act, not the local state statute.
• Miller Indus. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
  733 F.2d 813· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-04 ·cited 33×
  A negligent failure to warn of a known product defect, even without physical damage, can form a basis for a maritime tort action if the warranty does not expressly disclaim negligence. Crew members can recover lost wages based on a share of the lost catch when their compensation
• Griffith v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.
  610 F.2d 116· 3d Cir.· 1979-08-24 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a vessel owner's duty under § 905(b) is to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, rejecting arguments for a more limited standard or strict application of Restatement §§ 343-343A. The court also affirmed that a negligent shipowner is liable for the
• Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Star City Gravel Co., Inc.
  592 F.2d 455· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-12 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the denial of indemnity and costs, holding that the railroad waived its indemnity claim by failing to request proper jury instructions and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying costs.