Comparative Negligence

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

• Wagner v. Wagner
  372 So. 2d 510· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-06-26 ·cited 2×
  Donald Wagner and Highlands Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment on liability and subsequent jury verdict totaling $130,000 in a personal injury action. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment and jury verdict but vacated the final judgment due to a procedural
• Guffey v. Borden, Inc.
  595 F.2d 1111· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury's finding of 100% negligence on the defendant was not supported by the evidence, as the plaintiff's own actions contributed to his injury.
• Morrison v. Intercounty Constr. Corp.
  368 So. 2d 104· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-03-07 ·cited 2×
  In this personal injury appeal, the plaintiff challenges a jury verdict finding him 75% negligent and awarding $17,000 in damages, while his wife received zero damages on her loss of consortium claim. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, holding that both the negligence perc
• Aragon v. Fla. Equip. Co. OF Miami, Inc.
  368 So. 2d 90· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-03-06 ·cited 2×
  Carmen Aragon, as administratrix of a deceased's estate, appealed final judgments dismissing her negligence action against multiple defendants in a fatal accident case. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded as to certain defendants due to improper jury instru
• ST. Martin v. Allstate Ins. Co. & Edith Rosenblatt
  367 So. 2d 1077· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-02-13 ·cited 2×
• Kohr v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc.
  586 F.2d 53· 7th Cir.· 1978-11-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Government, having paid less in settlement than its allocable share of responsibility, is not entitled to contribution from Forth. It also held that Indiana's contributory negligence law, rather than federal common law, applies to Allegheny's property dama
• Levina Pittman Walker v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co.
  571 F.2d 866· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury could reasonably conclude the railroad was negligent in failing to sound a warning signal, and that this negligence was a proximate cause of the death.
• Weese v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.
  570 F.2d 611· 6th Cir.· 1978-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict and that the jury instructions, while containing some potentially erroneous elements, were not reversible error.
• Brown v. Link Belt Corp. & FMC Corp.
  565 F.2d 1107· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding strict liability and assumption of risk, and that comparative negligence did not apply to this strict liability case under the applicable 1971 Oregon statute.
• Fierstos v. Cullum
  351 So. 2d 370· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-10-26 ·cited 2×
  A tenant sued his landlord for negligence over an alleged failure to maintain a common stairway safely. The jury found the landlord solely negligent and awarded $7,000 in damages, but the trial court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the landlord. The appellate cou
• Johnson v. Bathey
  350 So. 2d 545· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-10-05 ·cited 2×
  A nine-year-old trespasser was severely injured by an operating irrigation pump on agricultural property. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Florida law requires proof that the child was specif
• Weedman v. Sunland Roller Rink, Inc.
  349 So. 2d 752· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-08-30 ·cited 2×
  The trial court erred by instructing the jury that assumption of risk completely barred recovery, as this defense is now merged into comparative negligence.
• Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Britt
  347 So. 2d 122· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-05-27 ·cited 2×
  Florida East Coast Railway Company appealed a wrongful death judgment for a child struck by a train at a railway crossing. The court affirmed the judgment, rejecting the railway's arguments that the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict, motion for new tria
• Seymour Premer v. State
  346 So. 2d 1219· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to preserve for appeal the issues of whether the Department had a duty to maintain the sidewalk and whether that question should have been submitted to the jury, because no objection was made at trial.
• Grover P. MacOn v. Seaward Constr. Co., Inc.
  555 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1977-05-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's jury instructions regarding last clear chance and the wife's loss of consortium recovery were proper under New Hampshire law, despite the advent of comparative negligence.
• Complaint of Sincere Navigation Corp. v. United States
  547 F.2d 255· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's responses on remand constituted full compliance with the mandate, having faithfully followed intervening case law and made findings that were not clearly erroneous.
• Evelio U. Valdez, Jr. v. Fesler
  335 So. 2d 553· Fla.· 1976-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that raising comparative negligence for the first time in assignments of error, without proper invocation before or during trial, is insufficient to allow retrial on that issue.
• Topercer v. Knox
  330 So. 2d 520· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-04-23 ·cited 2×
• Merced v. Auto PAK Co., Inc.
  533 F.2d 71· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury's verdict finding the manufacturer liable for a defective trash compactor should be reinstated, as the question of whether the dangers were discoverable by a reasonable user was a question of fact for the jury.
• Whorley v. Brewer
  315 So. 2d 511· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a new trial was required for both the original defendant and a subsequently joined codefendant, not on constitutional grounds, but because the Medical Mediation Act's provisions, as applied, created an unfair disparity in the proceedings.
• John Patrick Gilmore et ux. v. Morrison
  314 So. 2d 5· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-05-23 ·cited 2×
  In this consolidated appeal, the court reversed the trial court's reduction of a non-negligent plaintiff-passenger's recovery based on the driver-plaintiff's contributory negligence. The court held that under Florida law, a plaintiff-passenger who is found not negligent cannot ha
• Model v. Rabinowitz
  313 So. 2d 59· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-05-20 ·cited 2×
  A jury verdict in a comparative negligence case is legally absurd and requires a new trial if it is susceptible to different interpretations and appears to compare negligence to non-negligence or unknown causes.
• Purifoy v. Burlingame
  313 So. 2d 424· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-05-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there was a material issue of fact regarding the deceased's contributory negligence.
• Meyer v. Chicago
  508 F.2d 1395· 8th Cir.· 1975-02-03 ·cited 2×
  A federal court sitting in Minnesota must apply Minnesota's comparative negligence statute when Minnesota has the most significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence, even if the accident occurred in another state.
• Royce S. Bournazian and Linda Bournazian v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co.
  303 So. 2d 71· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-11-13 ·cited 2×
  This case addresses the proper application of the setoff principle in multi-party litigation following a motor vehicle accident. The court reversed the trial court's judgment for improperly offsetting verdicts across all parties as units, rather than only offsetting reciprocal ve
• Seymour Premer v. State
  300 So. 2d 737· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The issue of comparative negligence was properly raised and preserved, entitling the plaintiff to a new trial under the Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman v. Jones.
• Hartley v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co.
  299 So. 2d 108· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-07-26 ·cited 2×
• Artice Jones and Nancy Jones v. Flowers
  293 So. 2d 765· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-04-23 ·cited 2×
  Plaintiffs appealed an adverse judgment in a negligence action arising from an automobile collision. The trial court erred by allowing the defendant to withdraw her contributory negligence defense after arguing it to the jury, and the appellate court reversed for a new trial in t
• Cmty. Cabs, Inc. v. Grissett
  284 So. 2d 707· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-11-08 ·cited 2×
  Affirmed judgment for vehicle owner and driver where jury found plaintiff's sudden stop in traffic lane, not defendant's rear-end collision, was the proximate cause of the accident despite the presumption of negligence from the rear-end impact.
• Jones v. Petroleum Carrier Corp. OF Fla.
  483 F.2d 1369· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-20 ·cited 2×
  The court did not explicitly state a holding as this is a concurring opinion.
• Padilla v. Eugenio Salvador Rodriguez & Travelers Ins. Co.
  262 So. 2d 8· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-05-16 ·cited 2×
  A minor plaintiff was injured when riding on the rear bumper of an ice cream vendor's truck that suddenly accelerated. The trial court denied a jury instruction on last clear chance doctrine, and the appellate court reversed, holding that the instruction should have been given ba
• Anthony (Tony) Bitsos v. RED OWL Stores, Inc.
  459 F.2d 656· 8th Cir.· 1972-04-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that sufficient evidence existed to present the issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk to the jury, and that the trial court's jury instructions were proper.
• S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Awbrey
  244 So. 2d 540· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-02-23 ·cited 2×
  Southern Bell appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to an employee injured when an insulator fell from a utility pole being set in a hole that Southern Bell had enlarged but negligently failed to refill. The court affirmed, holding that Southern Bell owed a duty to refill the
• Naven Joseph Guillory v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co.
  433 F.2d 833· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding the drilling barge's employer solely at fault for the seaman's injuries, and thus no apportionment of damages was required.
• Standard OIL Co. OF Ky. v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. (Plaintiff & Counter-Defendant)
  421 F.2d 201· 5th Cir.· 1969-12-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court correctly applied Mississippi's contribution statute, treating parties equally for third-party claims, and that a settlement did not preclude IC's property damage claim.
• Woodard v. ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
  418 F.2d 1305· 5th Cir.· 1969-11-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the negligence of a husband driving a vehicle is not imputable to his wife as a passenger unless they are engaged in a joint enterprise or she has some right of control over the vehicle's operation.
• Haskell B. Fulmer v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc.
  215 So. 2d 48· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-10-03 ·cited 2×
  An employee sued Railway Express Agency under Florida's Extra Hazardous Occupations statute after his hand was crushed in a conveyor belt. The appellate court reversed the jury verdict for the defendant, finding that the trial court erred by instructing the jury only on the emplo
• Magnuson v. Fairmont Foods Co., Inc.
  398 F.2d 325· 7th Cir.· 1968-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in taking the question of comparing the negligence of the driver and the plaintiff from the jury.
• Lowry v. A/S D/S Svendborg & D/S af 1912 A/S v. Universal Terminal & Stevedoring Corp. (Third-Party
  396 F.2d 850· 3d Cir.· 1968-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions regarding the effect of the plaintiff's negligence on the defendant's liability, and the inclusion of an 'unavoidable accident' instruction in an unseaworthiness claim, warranted a new trial.
• Cosentino v. The Royal Netherlands S.S. Co.
  389 F.2d 726· 2d Cir.· 1968-01-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in ordering a new trial unless the plaintiff agreed to a remittitur of a portion of the first jury's verdict.
• Bill Hunter Truck Lines, Inc. v. Jernigan
  384 F.2d 361· 5th Cir.· 1967-10-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when read in their entirety, did not establish a standard of absolute liability and that the jury was properly instructed on comparative negligence.
• United States to the Use of Standard OIL Co. OF Cal. v. Natt McDOUGALL Co.
  381 F.2d 686· 9th Cir.· 1967-08-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an erroneous jury instruction regarding superseding negligence prejudiced Harms, requiring a new trial on damages exceeding the initial amount. Standard's appeal regarding damages was denied.
• Jones v. The Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.
  371 F.2d 545· 4th Cir.· 1966-12-08 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no error in the exoneration of the plaintiff from contributory negligence and the finding that the bell was not rung.
• Gilsoul v. United States
  347 F.2d 730· 7th Cir.· 1965-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's apportionment of 35% comparative negligence to the appellant was not clearly erroneous, and other issues raised were without merit.
• Leopold S. Topor-Taparek and Michelle Topor-Taparek v. Socony Mobil OIL Co., Inc.
  339 F.2d 792· 2d Cir.· 1964-12-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury charge was adequate and that the plaintiffs waived their right to have the admiralty issue of the sailboat's value decided by the jury.
• W. Contracting Corp. v. Gertrude (Trudie) M. Odle
  331 F.2d 38· 8th Cir.· 1964-04-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the decedent was guilty of more than slight contributory negligence or that he assumed the risk.
• Pahucki v. Elder Armster
  161 So. 2d 719· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-03-18 ·cited 2×
  In this negligence action arising from an automobile collision, the court reversed a directed verdict for defendant, holding that the trial court erred in withdrawing the liability issue from the jury when the evidence presented conflicting inferences about fault.
• Globig v. Burton Plumbing-Heating Co., Inc.
  313 F.2d 202· 7th Cir.· 1963-02-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding a violation of the Wisconsin safe place statute due to inadequate flooring and lighting in the attic.
• Davis v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co.
  138 So. 2d 97· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-02-26 ·cited 2×
  This case concerns an appeal by a plaintiff in a Federal Employers' Liability Act case who was dissatisfied with his recovery. The plaintiff argued that the trial court improperly submitted the issue of contributory negligence to the jury, which he believed led to an insufficient
• Bowe v. Butler
  133 So. 2d 347· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-09-29 ·cited 2×
  Plaintiff Bowe sued a railroad for personal injuries when railroad employees kicked box cars into a car where he was working, causing injury. The trial judge expressed serious doubts about the railroad's due care but reserved ruling on a directed verdict motion, and the jury retu