Comparative Negligence

2,627 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Personal Representative OF the Estate OF John Edward Starling v. Fisherman's Pier, Inc.
  401 So. 2d 1136· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-07-15 ·cited 19×
  The Fourth District reversed the dismissal of a negligence complaint against a pier operator whose customer became intoxicated, passed out on the pier near the ocean, and drowned. The court held that a commercial property operator owes an affirmative duty to take minimal safeguar
• W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Silverman
  378 So. 2d 28· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-11-28 ·cited 19×
  West American Insurance Company appeals a summary judgment requiring it to defend an auto passenger's counterclaim arising from alleged passenger conduct that caused a single-vehicle accident. The court affirmed, holding that the passenger's grabbing of the driver's arm does not
• Webb v. Dresser Indus.
  536 F.2d 603· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-04 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the shipowner's failure to provide adequate footwear for a seaman ordered ashore in icy conditions constituted unseaworthiness, but remanded for a determination of the seaman's comparative negligence.
• Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Grounds
  311 So. 2d 164· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-04-16 ·cited 19×
  Government Employees Insurance Company appeals a judgment in favor of its insured for failing to settle a claim within policy limits despite a clear settlement offer. The court affirmed the excess liability judgment but reversed the attorney's fee award, holding that the insurer'
• Alford v. Cool Cargo Carriers, Inc.
  936 So. 2d 646· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-06-30 ·cited 18×
  A passenger injured in a rear-end collision between two semi-tractor trailers challenges summary judgment in favor of the rear-vehicle driver. Although the court finds the rear-end collision presumption of negligence does not apply because the lead vehicle made an unexpected lane
• Biglen v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  910 So. 2d 405· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-09-21 ·cited 18×
  Biglen suffered electrical injuries when he negligently raised an aerial lift boom into FP&L's overhead power lines during storage operations. The court affirmed summary judgment for FP&L, holding that the utility owed no legal duty to Biglen because his negligent conduct fell ou
• Frederica E. Breaux v. City OF Miami Beach
  899 So. 2d 1059· Fla.· 2005-03-24 ·cited 18×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a municipality operating a public beach with facilities, parking, and a licensed concessionaire owes a duty of reasonable care to swimmers, even without formal designation as a swimming area. The Court reversed the Third District's grant of sum
• Howell v. Winkle
  866 So. 2d 192· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-02-24 ·cited 18×
  In this negligence action arising from an automobile accident, the trial court erroneously directed verdicts on both the plaintiff's comparative negligence and the defendant's negligence, depriving the jury of the opportunity to apportion fault. The appellate court reversed and r
• Dykes v. City OF Apalachicola
  645 So. 2d 50· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-10-28 ·cited 18×
  A 12-year-old boy was hit by a car after stepping from behind overgrown vegetation in a city right-of-way onto Market Street. The city conceded it was negligent in maintaining the right-of-way but successfully obtained summary judgment based on open and obvious danger and interve
• KAO v. Lauredo
  617 So. 2d 775· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-04-27 ·cited 18×
  The trial court erred in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict on the issue of the defendant's liability in a rear-end collision case.
• Standard Jury Instructions-Civil Cases (1.0
  613 So. 2d 1316· Fla.· 1993-02-11 ·cited 18×
  The Florida Supreme Court approved three new standard civil jury instructions: Instruction 1.0 on preliminary voir dire, Instruction 6.1d on motor vehicle no-fault threshold, and Instruction MI8 on fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. The Court authorized their publication
• Henrion v. NEW ERA Realty IV, Inc.
  586 So. 2d 1295· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-10-02 ·cited 18×
  This case involves a real estate broker's professional negligence in listing a property for sale. The jury found the broker 30% negligent and awarded damages of $345,000, but the trial court granted a new trial post-verdict and allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to p
• Rojas v. Drake
  569 So. 2d 859· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-11-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a lawsuit is not frivolous merely because the defendant prevailed on a motion for summary judgment, and a lay opinion of fault does not automatically render a suit frivolous.
• Trevino v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. & Mo. Pac. R.R. Co.
  916 F.2d 1230· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, alleging a collision with a train on a disused crossing under special circumstances, stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the district court erred in dismissing it on the pleadings.
• Manfredo v. Emp'r's Cas. Ins. Co.
  560 So. 2d 1162· Fla.· 1990-04-26 ·cited 18×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a certified question regarding the proper method for computing a workers' compensation insurer's equitable distribution from a third-party settlement. The Court held that the carrier's lien should be based on the ratio of net settlement proceeds
• Ford Sosebee v. Rath
  893 F.2d 54· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 18×
  An award of attorney's fees pursuant to a territorial statute is inappropriate in a case applying federal substantive admiralty law.
• Oakes v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
  546 So. 2d 427· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-04-04 ·cited 18×
  In this asbestos exposure case, a jury awarded $2.5 million to John Oakes for severe asbestos-related injuries and $175,000 to his wife. The trial court ordered a remittitur of $1.14 million and conditionally granted a new trial on damages. The appellate court reversed, holding t
• Wassell v. Adams
  865 F.2d 849· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the jury's apportionment of negligence, while potentially seeming low for the defendants, was not against the clear weight of the evidence and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.
• Otis Elevator Co. v. Lelia Chambliss and Avon Chambliss
  511 So. 2d 412· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-08-11 ·cited 18×
  Otis Elevator Company appealed from judgments awarding damages to the Chamblisses for injuries sustained in a Sears escalator fall, and from a separate indemnity judgment favoring Sears. The Florida appellate court reversed both judgments, holding that the trial court erred in in
• E.F. Hutton v. Sussman
  504 So. 2d 1372· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-04-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying relief from judgment to correct an oversight in reducing the compensatory damages award by the plaintiff's comparative negligence.
• Lewis v. Sims Crane Serv., Inc.
  498 So. 2d 573· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-12-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an owner/general contractor has a duty to maintain a construction job site in a reasonably safe condition and that construction hoists are dangerous instrumentalities for which the owner/general contractor can be held liable.
• Broward Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Ruiz
  493 So. 2d 474· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-07-02 ·cited 18×
  The Broward County School Board appealed a jury verdict holding it liable for negligent supervision after student Jose Ruiz was assaulted by fellow students in the school cafeteria area after school hours. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence that the school had a duty
• Johnson v. H.K. Webster, Inc.
  775 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1985-10-09 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the jury verdict, finding no reversible error in the admission of expert testimony, jury instructions, or the damage award.
• City OF Hialeah v. Lea Ann Weatherford
  466 So. 2d 1127· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-03-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the city failed to establish a factual basis to challenge the expert testimony regarding causation, making the testimony sufficient to support the jury verdict.
• Voynar v. Butler Mfg. Co.
  463 So. 2d 409· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-01-30 ·cited 18×
  In this products liability case, the estate of a construction worker killed when he fell through an unsecured roof panel sued the manufacturer for negligence and strict liability. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the manufacturer's verdict, holding that evidence of su
• Keltner v. Ford Motor Co.
  748 F.2d 1265· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the jury instructions on comparative negligence were proper, and the admission of evidence regarding the plaintiff's drinking habits was not an abuse of discretion.
• Barnabus Abel Landry v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc.
  731 F.2d 299· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Oceanic's own negligence was not covered by the Pental policy, and that Tidex did not breach the Operating Agreement by failing to provide insurance without limitation.
• Livernois v. Warner-Lambert Co., Inc.
  723 F.2d 1148· 4th Cir.· 1983-12-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the employees' claims for severance pay were premature because Warner-Lambert remained primarily liable for such payments if the successor employer failed to pay, meaning no job elimination or termination for convenience had yet occurred.
• Aubin v. Fudala
  782 F.2d 280· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-01 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgments, finding no reversible error in jury instructions, weight of evidence determinations, or damage awards.
• Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes
  425 So. 2d 594· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-12-29 ·cited 18×
  This personal injury case addresses whether a parent corporation can be held liable for torts committed by employees of its wholly-owned subsidiary. The court affirmed liability for all three corporate defendants, holding that the subsidiary operated as a mere instrumentality of
• Shell v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co.
  684 F.2d 537· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding government responsibility for grade crossing improvements was not reversible error, and that objections to counsel's summation comments were waived due to untimeliness.
• Rayburn C. Hill v. Nelson
  676 F.2d 1371· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in reducing the judgment by the stipulated amount of nonrecoverable economic loss, nor in excluding certain evidence, nor in finding the jury verdict not legally insufficient.
• Mitchell v. Volkswagenwerk, AG
  669 F.2d 1199· 8th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to rule the paraplegic injury indivisible as a matter of law, and that the jury should have been instructed on joint and several liability if the defect was a substantial factor. The apportioned verdict was inconsistent with th
• Bryant v. Fiadini
  405 So. 2d 1341· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-11-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on comparative negligence or the fire code, and affirmed the jury's verdict for the defendants.
• Salkay v. State Farm Mut. Auto. INS. Co.
  398 So. 2d 916· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-05-05 ·cited 18×
  State Farm appealed a trial court's order vacating a remittitur and reinstating a jury verdict for $108,000 in favor of the Salkays. The appellate court held that once a remittitur order is granted, it is a substantive right not subject to modification or rehearing, and therefore
• Byrd v. Heinrich Schmidt Reederei
  638 F.2d 1300· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-12 ·cited 18×
  A longshoreman cannot be found contributorily negligent for failing to stop work after complaining about dangerous conditions, as this impermissibly charges them with assumption of risk. However, juries should not be instructed to consider inflation in damage calculations, as pre
• Hollinger v. United States
  651 F.2d 636· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding the government negligent or Hollinger comparatively negligent, but remanded for more specific findings on impaired earning capacity.
• In re AIR Crash Disaster AT John F. Kennedy Int'l Airport ON June 24
  635 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-06 ·cited 18×
  The trial court did not err in excluding certain facts as stipulated, as the circumstances surrounding their admission and the parties' positions had changed due to the government's settlement.
• Strickland v. Roberts
  382 So. 2d 1338· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-04-30 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting opinion argues that summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding negligence and the boat operator's control, particularly in a water skiing accident.
• Charpentier v. Fluor Ocean Servs., Inc.
  613 F.2d 81· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the seaman's release was valid because he was informed of his rights and understood the consequences of signing, despite a later-discovered permanent disability.
• Slotkin v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York
  614 F.2d 301· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-29 ·cited 18×
  The court denied most petitions for rehearing, clarifying that its prior decision did not impinge on reinsurance privity and that a retrial could address agency and misrepresentation. It also struck an alternative holding against John McGrath based on a theory not previously adva
• Mattschei v. United States
  600 F.2d 205· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-21 ·cited 18×
  The United States, as a tortfeasor under the FTCA, is subject to California's rule of joint and several liability for indivisible injuries, even under comparative negligence, and should have been permitted to implead other tortfeasors for contribution or indemnity.
• Harless v. Boyle-Midway Division
  594 F.2d 1051· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding rebuttal evidence regarding the effectiveness of a new warning label and in its jury instructions concerning the defense of the decedent's negligence. The court also found that evidence of the decedent's marijuana use was und
• Davison v. Pac. Inland Navigation Co., Inc.
  569 F.2d 507· 9th Cir.· 1978-02-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of negligence against MIC, as MIC lacked knowledge of the hazardous condition and control over the unloading process.
• Wright v. United States
  568 F.2d 153· 10th Cir.· 1977-12-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the United States was not negligent in the design or construction of the bridge approaches and that its actions were protected by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Mieure v. Moore
  330 So. 2d 546· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-04-20 ·cited 18×
  Defendants in an automobile personal injury case appealed from an order dismissing their counterclaim and third-party complaint seeking contribution from the plaintiff (Moore), who was the husband and father of the injured parties, and his insurance company. The court affirmed th
• Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. DeMIRZA
  312 So. 2d 501· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-04-22 ·cited 18×
  Horace Mann Insurance Company appealed the trial court's denial of defendant Curry's motion to file a counterclaim for property damage arising from an automobile accident, where the counterclaim became time-barred by the statute of limitations after the plaintiff filed suit but b
• Melita Anne Thornton v. Elliott
  288 So. 2d 254· Fla.· 1973-12-05 ·cited 18×
  A new trial applying the doctrine of comparative negligence is warranted when the jury's question during deliberations appropriately raised the issue, and a subsequent appellate decision changed the governing law.
• ORR v. United States
  486 F.2d 270· 5th Cir.· 1973-09-14 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge argues the government should not be held liable for the contractor's negligence in failing to follow safety procedures.
• Gulf OIL Corp. v. Panama Canal Co.
  481 F.2d 561· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that pre-judgment interest should be allowed in this maritime allision claim, and that certain expenses incurred by the vessel owner were necessarily incurred by reason of the accident.