Comparative Fault

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

• Lone Star Indus., Inc. v. Mays Towing Co., Inc.
  927 F.2d 1453· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-21 ·cited 4×
  The court should affirm the district court's order because the majority failed to conclude the district court's findings were clearly erroneous or that Lone Star's negligence was a superseding cause as a matter of law.
• Ehrhardt v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  902 F.2d 664· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the postnuptial agreement was relevant to Maxine's damages claim, and Penn Mutual should have been allowed to present evidence and argue its waiver and estoppel defenses to the jury. The court also held that the district court erred in its jury instruction reg
• E. Ritter & Co. v. Dep't OF THE Army
  874 F.2d 1236· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government's failure to maintain the flood control ditch banks, which caused erosion to adjacent land, constituted operational negligence not protected by the discretionary function exception or floodwater immunity, and affirmed the damages awarded.
• DiMILLO v. Sheepscot Pilots, Inc.
  870 F.2d 746· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a ship's master must exercise reasonable care and maritime skill, and that the magistrate's findings of negligence and causation were not clearly erroneous. However, the damages awarded were improperly calculated.
• Davy Venturelli v. Cincinnati
  850 F.2d 825· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of breach of warranty of merchantability, and that Massachusetts law does not reduce a breach of warranty verdict based on comparative fault.
• Richard D. and Mabel C. Burden v. Evansville Materials, Inc.
  840 F.2d 343· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in reducing the award for contributory negligence or in calculating damages based on minimum wage earning capacity, and that the evidence supported findings of unseaworthiness and negligence.
• Wolkenhauer v. Smith
  822 F.2d 711· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's findings regarding damages were sufficiently specific and that the apportionment of 80% fault to the plaintiff was not clearly erroneous.
• Keeler v. Richards Mfg. Co., Inc.
  817 F.2d 1197· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of defective manufacture, but erred in submitting the issue of disfigurement damages to the jury due to a lack of evidence, and that the award for future medical expenses was speculative.
• Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Oceancarrier Shipholding OF Belgium N.V. & ABC Container Lines N.V.
  799 F.2d 1093· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the vessel owner was liable for the longshoreman's injury due to the crew's negligence in closing the hatch cover, and the apportionment of fault was not clearly erroneous.
• Howell v. Gould, Inc.
  800 F.2d 482· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, the jury instructions were proper, and the damages awarded were not excessive.
• RED TOP Sedan and Emanuel D. Mustillo v. Isadore Applebaum
  495 So. 2d 786· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-09-17 ·cited 4×
  The court reversed summary judgment for defendant Janneau in an automobile negligence action, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether Janneau's speed and evasive actions under wet conditions were reasonable, precluding summary judgment even though
• Albertine Madge van Amersfoorth v. Bantry Transp. Co.
  791 F.2d 26· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived the right to apportion damages by consenting to a jury verdict form that did not allow for such apportionment. The court also held that the discount rate for future losses should be 6%, not 20% or 10%.
• Downie v. Abex Corp.
  741 F.2d 1235· 10th Cir.· 1984-08-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a rational jury could find that GM made affirmations of fact constituting an express warranty regarding the fail-safe nature of its ball-screw assemblies, and that these warranties became part of the basis of the bargain, even if made post-sale.
• Mary Grant for the Heirs of Gregory Grant v. The City OF Duluth
  672 F.2d 677· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions misstated Minnesota law regarding a landowner's duty to a trespasser and a trespasser's duty to act reasonably, and also erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the award was not subject to income taxes.
• Atl. Mut. Ins. Co. v. ABC Ins. Co. & Garber Bros., Inc.
  645 F.2d 528· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of no negligence on the part of KIMMIE C was clearly erroneous, and KIMMIE C's violations of navigation rules likely contributed to the collision.
• Wager v. Maynard J. PRO
  603 F.2d 1005· D.C. Cir.· 1979-07-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the illegality of the bribery scheme as a matter of law, and that Wager failed to establish a cause of action for gross negligence, as Pro's actions constituted an intentional tort.
• Burns Bros. Plumbers, Inc. v. Groves Ventures Co. & S. J. Groves & Sons Co.
  412 F.2d 202· 6th Cir.· 1969-06-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a subcontract's provision for interim testing, though not in the original written contract, was a valid subsequent oral modification. It also held that damages for flood-related delays were not recoverable due to lack of contractual basis and that the award fo
• Tank Barge Hygrade, Inc. v. THE Tug Gatco NEW Jersey
  250 F.2d 485· 3d Cir.· 1957-12-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the tug was grossly at fault, the tanker's statutory fault in failing to sound the danger signal likely contributed to the collision, thus requiring an equal division of damages under existing maritime law.
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. & Phlip Morris USA, Inc. v. Mahfuz
  324 So. 3d 495· Fla. 4th DCA· 2021-06-30 ·cited 3×
  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris USA appeal a judgment in favor of Richard Mahfuz as personal representative of Rita Mahfuz's estate. The court reverses and remands for a new trial, finding that plaintiff's counsel made improper inflammatory statements during closing a
• Getts v. State
  313 So. 3d 964· Fla. 2d DCA· 2021-04-07 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court reversed a vehicular homicide conviction because the trial court improperly excluded evidence that the other driver involved in the fatal crash was intoxicated. This excluded evidence was relevant to the defendant's defense that the other driver's actions were
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Rouse
  307 So. 3d 89· Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-07-15 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court affirmed a jury verdict against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) in an Engle-progeny case. The court held that the plaintiff, Paul E. Rouse, sufficiently proved detrimental reliance on the tobacco industry's misleading advertising campaign for his civil con
• Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Chadwell
  306 So. 3d 174· Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-06-03 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court affirmed a jury verdict for the plaintiff in an Engle-progeny tobacco lawsuit. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding a prior asbestos claim and that the jury instructions on fraudulent concealm
• Sherman v. Savastano
  220 So. 3d 441· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-06-21 ·cited 3×
  In this negligence case, defendant Sherman appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for attorney's fees based on a proposal for settlement. The Fourth District reversed, holding that Sherman's settlement proposal was sufficiently clear and unambiguous under Florida law, de
• Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle
  182 So. 3d 885· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-01-06 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the trial court must interview a second juror due to potential misconduct involving receipt of non-record information about a prior verdict. Other issues raised were without reversible error.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. McGEE
  867 So. 2d 1244· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-03-17 ·cited 3×
  The court held that interest on the full jury award is due from the date of the verdict, as mandated by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.340(c).
• Camp v. Paul N. Howard Co.
  853 So. 2d 1072· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-06-13 ·cited 3×
  Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM), an engineer on a water project, sued the general contractor Paul N. Howard Company for contractual indemnity after settling a personal injury claim by an electrical accident victim. The court reversed summary judgment against CDM, holding that the ind
• In re AIR Crash Disaster Near Cerritos v. Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A.
  982 F.2d 1271· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the United States is entitled to a 100% offset for Warsaw Convention payments and that funeral expenses should not have been awarded to plaintiffs who did not incur them. It also remanded for a determination on discounting noneconomic damages to present value.
• Tragarz v. Keene Corp.
  980 F.2d 411· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-06 ·cited 3×
  The court held that direct testimony of exposure, even without specific job sites, is sufficient to support a jury finding of probable exposure, and that evidence of low-level asbestos exposure can be a substantial factor in causing mesothelioma.
• In re the Complaint of Sheen
  709 F. Supp. 1123· S.D. Fla.· 1989-02-24 ·cited 3×
  The owner of a vessel is entitled to limit liability under the Limitation Act if they were not in privity or had knowledge of the negligence or unseaworthiness that caused the accident, even if they delegated management to a third party.
• Bartley Invs., Ltd. v. Menendez
  427 So. 3d 92· Fla. 2d DCA· 2025-12-19 ·cited 2×
  A property owner owes a duty to third parties to prevent or correct a known dangerous condition on its property when the owner has the means to do so, even if the resulting injury occurs off-premises, provided the defendant's conduct created a foreseeable zone of risk. Foreseeabi
• Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Duignan
  370 So. 3d 978· Fla. 2d DCA· 2023-05-05 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court reversed a final judgment in an Engle progeny case, remanding for a new trial on punitive damages and to reduce compensatory damages based on the smoker's comparative fault. The court found that while the negligence and strict liability claims were unaffected
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Burgess
  294 So. 3d 910· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed a judgment against R.J. Reynolds (RJR) in an Engle-progeny lawsuit, holding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to infer detrimental reliance on the tobacco industry's deceptive practices. The court certified conflict with a decision that
• Lopez v. Wilsonart, LLC
  275 So. 3d 831· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-07-12 ·cited 2×
  Under Florida's summary judgment standard, a trial court errs when it grants summary judgment by weighing competing evidence and finding that video evidence completely negates an opposing party's eyewitness testimony and expert opinion, as credibility determinations and weighing
• Home Title Co. of Md., Inc. v. Lasalla
  257 So. 3d 640· Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-11-16 ·cited 2×
  Home Title Company of Maryland appeals a judgment awarding Michael LaSalla $60,382 for breach of fiduciary duty relating to the improper conveyance of real property from an LLC to third parties. The court reverses, finding that LaSalla lacks standing as an individual member to br
• Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Gertrude Marchese for the Estate of Salvatore Marchese
  231 So. 3d 473· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-11-22 ·cited 2×
  In this tobacco wrongful death case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's reduction of compensatory damages based on comparative fault, holding that the tobacco companies waived their right to such reduction by repeatedly assuring the jury throughout tri
• Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Barbose
  228 So. 3d 702· Fla. 2d DCA· 2017-10-20 ·cited 2×
• James R. Shoemaker, D.O. v. Sliger
  187 So. 3d 863· Fla. 5th DCA· 2016-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The court reversed the trial court's amended judgment that awarded post-trial interest from the jury verdict date rather than from the original judgment date. The court held that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.340(c), which provides that interest accrues from the verdict d
• The L.E. Myers Co. v. Young
  165 So. 3d 1· Fla. 2d DCA· 2015-02-27 ·cited 2×
  L.E. Myers Company appeals a judgment in a personal injury case arising from an auto accident involving a concrete power pole. The court reversed the trial court's partial summary judgment on the inherently dangerous activity doctrine and directed verdict denial on punitive damag
• Carmen and Jose Sanchez v. Braun & MAY Realty, Inc.
  795 So. 2d 1006· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-08-22 ·cited 2×
  Homebuyers appealed a judgment in their negligence action against a real estate agent and broker arising from the purchase of a house with undisclosed structural defects. The court affirmed the denial of attorney's fees but reversed and remanded the damage apportionment, holding
• McFARLAND & SON, Inc. v. Royal Mende Basel and Steven Kane
  727 So. 2d 266· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-01-15 ·cited 2×
  In this negligence case, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a jury verdict finding McFarland & Son, Inc. liable for negligent hiring, training, and supervision of truck driver Jonathan Queen, holding that plaintiffs failed to establish a causal connection between
• In re Air Crash Near Cali
  985 F. Supp. 1106· S.D. Fla.· 1997-10-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the pilots' actions, particularly descending from an off-course position in mountainous terrain, constituted willful misconduct under the Warsaw Convention, and that these actions were a proximate cause of the crash.
• Barrwood Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v. Maser
  675 So. 2d 983· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-05-29 ·cited 2×
  A landowner can be held liable for damages caused by a dog on its property if there is sufficient evidence that the landowner knew of the vicious dog's presence and had the ability to control the premises. The trial court's rulings regarding the verdict form and damage reduction
• Fla. Corvette Calipers, Inc. v. Cincinnati Milacron Mktg. Co.
  670 So. 2d 1203· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-04-10 ·cited 2×
  Florida appellate court reversed a setoff under section 768.041(2) because the plaintiff's separate fraud claim against the machine seller could not be offset by a prior negligence settlement with a different defendant, as they involve distinct causes of action and separate tortf
• Sanders v. Am. Body Armor & Equip., Inc.
  652 So. 2d 883· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-03-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a manufacturer has no duty to warn of an open and obvious danger, specifically the lack of protection at the abutment areas of a bulletproof vest.
• Groff v. Chandris, Inc.
  835 F. Supp. 1408· S.D. Fla.· 1993-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that under general maritime law, a jury cannot apportion fault to a non-party to the lawsuit.
• Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. M/V Incotrans Spirit
  998 F.2d 316· 5th Cir.· 1993-08-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the doctrine of deviation did not apply to abrogate COGSA's liability limitations, and that Incotrans could not recover defense costs through Ryan indemnification due to the application of comparative fault principles.
• Darreyl Wayne Gough v. Natural GAS Pipeline Co. OF Am.
  996 F.2d 763· 5th Cir.· 1993-07-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Captain Gough's physical impact and injuries were sufficient to allow recovery for emotional distress under maritime law, but the jury's damage award was excessive and ordered a remittitur. The court also affirmed the jury's finding of contributory fault.
• Huff v. Heckendorn Mfg. Co., Inc.
  991 F.2d 464· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiffs waived any objection to the evidence of the emergency brake by intentionally introducing it as part of their case in chief after their motion in limine was denied.
• Prior v. United States Postal Serv.
  985 F.2d 440· 8th Cir.· 1993-02-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding the plaintiff negligent for failing to inspect the APC latches and in apportioning 75% of the causative fault to him, as these findings were supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous under Iowa law.
• Martin v. United States
  984 F.2d 1033· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that California's Proposition 51, which limits joint and several liability for non-economic damages, applies even when one tortfeasor's conduct is intentional and another's is negligent. The court also held that the mother and sister of a child who was abducted and