Comparative Fault

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

• Cotita v. Pharma-Plast
  974 F.2d 598· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing the defendant to amend its answer to assert the plaintiff's comparative negligence, nor in refusing to allow additional evidence of the manufacturer's fault during the damages phase.
• Faucett v. Ingersoll-Rand Mining & Mach. Co.
  960 F.2d 653· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff raised a disputed issue of material fact regarding whether the roof-bolter was unreasonably dangerous, precluding summary judgment.
• Newby v. F/V Kristen Gail
  937 F.2d 1439· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the master's liability for crew negligence is governed by agency principles, and indemnity is limited to the master's proportion of fault.
• Dugan v. EMS Helicopters, Inc.
  915 F.2d 1428· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding a prior ancillary complaint as inadmissible, finding it constituted an admission against interest and impeachment evidence, and that its exclusion was harmful error requiring a new trial.
• Chaney v. Falling Creek Metal Prods., Inc.
  906 F.2d 1304· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding intervening cause were misleading, creating ambiguity in the jury's findings, and thus a new trial is warranted.
• Williams v. Arai Hirotake, Ltd.
  731 F. Supp. 1557· S.D. Fla.· 1990-02-16 ·cited 2×
  An unqualified release of a first tortfeasor releases all other tortfeasors unless the release expressly provides otherwise, and this rule applies even when Florida statutes appear to contradict it.
• Gander v. FMC Corp.
  892 F.2d 1373· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-12 ·cited 2×
  The court is unable to conclude that the use of the confusing verdict form was improper, despite acknowledging its confusing nature and recommending against its future use.
• ELK Corp. OF Ark. v. Builders Transp., Inc.
  862 F.2d 663· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a third-party tortfeasor cannot seek indemnity or contribution from an employer when the employee's injury is covered by workers' compensation, absent an express contract of indemnity.
• Carlissa Churchill v. The F/V Fjord
  857 F.2d 571· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the F/V Fjord is not liable in rem because the operator of its skiff was not in lawful possession, and that a state statute imposing unlimited liability is preempted by federal maritime law. The court also affirmed the finding that the lack of lights was not a
• White v. Amoco OIL Co. & Hattie G. Clifton
  835 F.2d 1113· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-19 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's apportionment of liability, finding both Amoco for negligent installation and Deutsch for inadequate warnings liable for the accident.
• In re the complaint of Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v. Prudential Lines, Inc.
  813 F.2d 634· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Hellenic Carrier's violation of Rule 7(b) could not be a contributing cause to the collision, and that navigational errors by the watch officer did not constitute owner privity, thus affirming limitation of liability but reversing the fault apportionment.
• Walker v. Paccar, Inc.
  802 F.2d 1053· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-08 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the jury's finding of liability against Paccar, holding that the issues were properly submitted to the jury, and remanded for entry of judgment for the full jury award based on a change in Missouri law regarding comparative fault.
• LR Ambassador Assocs., Ltd. v. Andrews
  492 So. 2d 764· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-08-06 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed a jury verdict finding the property owners 100% liable for injuries sustained when the plaintiff drove her car into a drain cover in their parking lot. The court upheld the jury's determination that the plaintiff was an invitee owed a duty of reasonab
• Franklin Stainless Corp. v. Marlo Transp. Corp.
  748 F.2d 865· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the shipper is not entitled to indemnity from the carrier because the defect in loading was not open and obvious to the carrier, but contribution between the shipper and carrier is appropriate due to their joint responsibility for the accident.
• Zahrte v. Sturm Ruger & Co., Inc.
  709 F.2d 26· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's jury instruction on assumption of risk, which barred recovery if the jury found the plaintiff assumed the risk, was contrary to Montana law.
• Potter v. ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
  622 F.2d 979· 8th Cir.· 1980-06-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied Michigan law regarding interspousal immunity in a contribution claim, and that the admission of testimony regarding the condition of crossing signals and the jury instructions were proper.
• W. P. L. Servs., Inc. v. Bisso Towboat Co., Inc.
  598 F.2d 417· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the ALMA S was not negligent was not clearly erroneous and affirmed the dismissal of the action.
• Lambert v. Will Bros. Co., Inc.
  596 F.2d 799· 8th Cir.· 1979-04-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on assumption of risk because there was insufficient evidence that the plaintiff knew and appreciated the specific danger that caused his injury.
• McPHERSON v. Sunset Speedway, Inc.
  594 F.2d 711· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict for the defendant on the grounds of assumption of risk, as the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to a known danger.
• Linde-Griffith Const. Co. v. THE Authentic
  210 F.2d 757· 2d Cir.· 1954-03-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bridge tender's actions did not constitute negligence contributing to the collision, and the tug's fault was glaring.
• Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Burns
  402 So. 3d 1178· Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-02-12 ·cited 1×
  Expert testimony from Dr. Weaver and Galatsis was admissible under Daubert because each expert provided a fact-based chain of reasoning applying reliable principles and methods to the facts of the case, including detailed review of evidence, citation to scientific studies and ind
• USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Deehl
  400 So. 3d 689· Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-09-30 ·cited 1×
  USAA Casualty Insurance Company appeals the trial court's denial of summary judgment on comparative fault, grant of directed verdict on comparative fault, and rejection of additur regarding non-economic damages in an uninsured motorist claim. The court affirms all three orders, f
• Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Jordan
  333 So. 3d 300· Fla. 1st DCA· 2022-01-19 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed a trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs to a plaintiff in an Engle progeny case. The core issue was whether the "locality" for determining reasonable attorney rates should include all attorneys litigating similar cases in the jurisdiction,
• Goodloe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
  1 F.4th 1289· 11th Cir.· 2021-06-21 ·cited 1×
  Florida law applies to supplement general maritime law for wrongful death damages, allowing recovery of non-pecuniary damages.
• Fonger v. Nall
  286 So. 3d 332· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-11-15 ·cited 1×
  A rear driver's failure to stop in a rear-end collision is not rebutted by evidence of the lead driver's sudden stop when that stop occurs at a place where sudden stops are reasonably expected, such as at a busy traffic intersection. The trial court erred in denying the directed
• Regal Ent. Grp. v. Navas
  252 So. 3d 380· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-08-01 ·cited 1×
  A non-party defendant may be included on a verdict form to reduce a defendant's comparative liability under section 768.81, Florida Statute, unless the non-party's conduct rises to the level of an intentional tort, and where the trial court found the non-party was at most neglige
• Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Brown
  243 So. 3d 521· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-04-18 ·cited 1×
  A trial court may accept a partial verdict in a civil case when a jury cannot achieve unanimity on all issues, and such acceptance is within the court's discretion.
• Harrison v. Gregory
  221 So. 3d 1273· Fla. 5th DCA· 2017-07-07 ·cited 1×
  In this wrongful death appeal, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a jury verdict assessing 75% fault to defendant Marie Harrison and 25% fault to the deceased motorcycle operator, finding cumulative trial errors—admission of a prejudicial statement, reference to
• Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Lucinda Naugle
  126 So. 3d 1155· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-06-22 ·cited 1×
  Philip Morris USA appeals a $36.76 million judgment awarded to Lucinda Naugle, an Engle progeny case holder who developed severe COPD from smoking PM USA cigarettes. The Fourth District affirms the entire judgment, rejecting all five of PM USA's contentions on appeal.
• Grosscup v. Pantano
  725 F. Supp. 2d 1370· S.D. Fla.· 2010-07-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that claims against state agencies (DCA, DEP, City) were not ripe due to lack of a final decision and were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity for DCA and DEP. Claims against federal defendants were not moot, and mandamus jurisdiction existed for one application.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Glassman
  729 So. 2d 485· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-03-24 ·cited 1×
  Allstate Insurance Company appealed the trial court's judgment limiting its recovery from joint tortfeasors Glassman and Interamerican to 50% of damages paid to an uninsured motorist claimant. The court affirmed, holding that Allstate's failure to plead equitable subrogation in t
• Grimaldi Deep Sea S.p.A. v. SSA Atl., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-17
  The court held that a time charterer cannot recover indemnity under the implied warranty of workmanlike performance for claims arising from property damage or personal injury to maritime rescuers, as the Ryan doctrine's justifications do not apply in this context.
• Palm Ave. Hialeah Tr. v. Eisenberg
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-08-13
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to strike affirmative defenses, striking one defense and allowing others to proceed.
• Sims v. BMW of N. Am. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-13
  The court held that the defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony and demonstrative exhibits should be denied because the expert did not change his core opinions and the exhibits were not prejudicial.
• McGary v. Pacifica Daytona
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2024-08-02
  Where a jury awards medical damages but zero pain and suffering damages despite undisputed evidence that the plaintiff suffered at least some pain from the injury, the trial court abuses its discretion in denying additur, and the case must be remanded for reconsideration of the a
• Sloan v. Fisher
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2024-06-21
  Improper closing argument comments that are objected to and cured by jury instructions do not constitute fundamental error warranting a new trial unless they are harmful, incurable, and so damaging to trial fairness that the public's interest in justice requires a new trial.
• Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Safonte
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2024-06-20
  Publix Super Markets appealed a judgment holding it liable for a customer's slip-and-fall injury caused by yogurt that an invitee accidentally spilled while shopping. The court reversed, holding that absent actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, a business c
• Johnson v. East Coast Waffles
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-11-02
  The court held that the defendant met its burden to establish the expert's qualifications, the reliability of her methodology, and the helpfulness of her opinions to the jury.
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Spurlock
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2023-09-13
  The appellate court reversed a punitive damages award against a tobacco company, finding the jury may have improperly considered evidence from a dismissed conspiracy claim. The court affirmed a directed verdict for the company on the conspiracy claim.
• Dubose v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-12
  The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability, vicarious liability, and the government's affirmative defense of comparative fault.
• Schneider
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-03-14
  In a collision between two recreational fishing vessels in dense fog off the coast of Naples, Florida, the court found Dr. Julie Leonard solely liable for the accident because she operated her vessel at 29 mph in severely limited visibility (75-100 feet), violating federal mariti
• Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Gore
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-04-13
  Philip Morris appeals a trial court judgment awarding Gore $2,515,086.53 in attorney's fees and costs in an Engle progeny wrongful death action pursuant to a Proposal for Settlement. The central dispute concerns whether Philip Morris is entitled to a setoff against the attorney's
• Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  Fla.· 2022-03-17
  An Engle progeny plaintiff must prove reliance on a statement made by an Engle defendant (for a concealment claim) or co-conspirator (for a conspiracy claim) that concealed or omitted material information about the health effects or addictiveness of smoking cigarettes. The plaint
• Birren v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-03-04
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on claims of negligent failure to warn, negligent design/installation/approval, and negligence of crewmembers, but granted summary judgment for claims related to medical staff negligence.
• Diaz v. Doctors Best Weight Loss & Wellness Ctr., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-02-23
  The court held that a motion to strike an affirmative defense is a drastic remedy and should only be granted if the defense is patently frivolous or clearly invalid as a matter of law.
• Main St. Ent., Inc. v. Guardianship of Jacquelyn Anne Faircloth
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2022-02-09
  The appellate court reversed a trial court's judgment, holding that a bar that "willfully and unlawfully" served alcohol to an underage driver should have been allowed to assert comparative fault and "alcohol defenses." The court reasoned that such claims are negligence actions,
• Lowitz v. S. Ala. Brick Co., Inc.
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2022-02-02
  This case concerns whether a trial court must conduct an in camera review of a deceased patient's mental health records before ordering their disclosure in a wrongful death lawsuit. The appellate court held that such a review is required to ensure only relevant records are produc
• Gutierrez v. Fla. Westside Trucking Corp.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-01-05
  This case involves a plaintiff appealing a jury verdict and subsequent orders in a negligence action arising from a car accident. The appellate court affirmed some aspects but reversed and remanded others, finding the jury's award for past medical expenses was against the manifes
• Goodloe Marine, Inc. v. Caillou Island Towing Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-11-01
  Indemnification is not an appropriate remedy for surveyors in property damage cases, and RJA is required to respond to Goodloe's claims.
• Staller v. Circle K Stores, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-10-28
  The court granted in part both the defendant's and plaintiff's motions in limine, precluding certain evidence and arguments from being presented at trial.