Comparative Negligence

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

• Miller v. Pine Bluff Hotel Co.
  286 F.2d 34· 8th Cir.· 1961-01-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's contributory negligence was a question of fact for the jury, and that the Arkansas comparative negligence statute did not apply to this case, thus affirming the judgment for the defendant.
• S. Ry. Co. v. Neely
  284 F.2d 633· 5th Cir.· 1960-12-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's actions in attempting to navigate a dangerous railroad crossing did not constitute negligence as a matter of law, and the apportionment of fault was justified.
• Eben L. Burleson v. Champion
  283 F.2d 653· 5th Cir.· 1960-11-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony, charging the jury on bridge accidents, refusing a prejudicial jury instruction, or in its overall charge regarding the duty of care, and that the verdict was not contradictory.
• Lester v. Atchison
  275 F.2d 42· 10th Cir.· 1960-01-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the issue of gross negligence and in instructing the jury that violation of a statute constituted negligence per se without considering potential excuses.
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Anderson
  267 F.2d 329· 5th Cir.· 1959-05-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the last clear chance doctrine because it requires actual discovery of peril, which was not established, and this error necessitates a new trial.
• Odus H. Rogers v. Helene A. Saeger
  247 F.2d 758· 10th Cir.· 1957-08-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the petitioner's negligence caused the collision, the occupants of the anchored boat were contributorily negligent due to obscured lights, requiring a reduction in damages.
• Mrs. Imogene Toombs Parkins v. Brown
  241 F.2d 367· 5th Cir.· 1957-01-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant, as there was sufficient evidence of the defendant's negligence for a jury to consider.
• Panama Canal Co. v. Wagner
  234 F.2d 163· 5th Cir.· 1956-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of the 'captive tenant' situation in the Canal Zone, which was relevant to the issues of assumption of risk and negligence.
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Ward
  81 So. 2d 476· Fla.· 1955-06-15 ·cited 2×
  In this wrongful death case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $10,000 judgment against a railroad company and its engineer for the death of an 18-month-old child struck by a train passing through an incorporated municipality. The court held that a jury could reasonably find n
• Isaacson v. Jones
  216 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1954-09-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the libelant was contributorily negligent, requiring application of comparative negligence principles to damages.
• Monday v. Clynes
  212 F.2d 802· 6th Cir.· 1954-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury could find the truck driver's failure to avoid the collision was the proximate cause, notwithstanding the decedent's initial negligence.
• Massey v. Chattanooga Station Co.
  210 F.2d 167· 6th Cir.· 1954-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the case should have been submitted to the jury due to controverted fact issues regarding negligence.
• Gonet v. Evans
  66 So. 2d 53· Fla.· 1953-06-26 ·cited 2×
  Tenant Annette Gonet sued landlord Evans for negligence after falling on a loose rubber mat on an outdoor stairway. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's directed verdict for the landlord, holding that the tenant's knowledge of the stairway's condition and her choi
• Werner Transp. Co. v. Zimmerman
  201 F.2d 687· 7th Cir.· 1953-02-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an audible warning signal is sufficient if capable of being heard, and that findings of negligence regarding lookout and management/control are not necessarily duplicative when statutory duties are violated.
• Ernst v. Jewel Tea Co., Inc.
  197 F.2d 881· 7th Cir.· 1952-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence did not support the trial court's finding of negligence, as there was no proof of a mechanical defect, the door operated normally and slowly, and the plaintiff failed to prove she was struck by the door or that the defendant had notice of any dang
• Gross v. Gross
  169 F.2d 199· 7th Cir.· 1948-06-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence did not support a finding of negligence against the plaintiff driver (Gross) for the passengers' injuries, nor did it support the passengers' assumption of risk. The emergency created by the defendant driver's sudden, unsignaled turn excused the p
• Union Pac. R. Co. v. Blank
  167 F.2d 291· 8th Cir.· 1948-04-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to submit the issue of assumption of risk to the jury and in dismissing the third-party complaint against the contractor.
• Vileski v. Pacific-Atlantic S. S. Co.
  163 F.2d 553· 9th Cir.· 1947-08-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the libelant's injury was caused by his own negligence in choosing an unsafe method to perform repairs, rather than by the shipowner's negligence.
• Herrin Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jarvis
  156 F.2d 276· 5th Cir.· 1946-06-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing an amendment to the complaint, finding sufficient evidence of negligence, and applying Mississippi's comparative negligence law.
• Jones v. City of Columbus
  134 F.2d 464· 5th Cir.· 1943-03-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant city, as the evidence presented a question of fact for the jury regarding the city's negligence in sidewalk construction.
• Carey-Reed Co. v. Carney
  117 F.2d 108· 5th Cir.· 1941-01-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the driver was not negligent, and the pedestrian's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injury and death.
• Sykes v. Bensinger Rec. Corp.
  117 F.2d 964· 7th Cir.· 1941-01-06 ·cited 2×
  A bowling alley proprietor is not liable under Wisconsin's safe place statute for an injury caused by a common, long-standing structural gap if the danger was not foreseeable and no similar accidents had occurred.
• Kenan v. Withers
  137 Fla. 561· Fla.· 1939-04-14 ·cited 2×
  This case involves a personal injury lawsuit where a jury awarded damages to a husband for his wife's injuries and loss of consortium, despite awarding only nominal damages to the wife. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the jury's verdict was supported by ev
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Clemmons
  112 Fla. 535· Fla.· 1933-10-31 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court was equally divided on whether a railroad company was liable for a truck driver's death. The court affirmed the judgment on condition of a remittitur, otherwise reversing, due to the divided opinions and to avoid further litigation.
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Jones
  98 Fla. 470· Fla.· 1929-09-25 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $2,000 judgment for personal injuries sustained in a railroad crossing collision. The court found that while the driver of the car was negligent, the railroad company was also negligent in its operation of the train, and the plaintiff passenge
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Wallace
  66 Fla. 321· Fla.· 1913-11-11 ·cited 2×
  Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company appeals a jury verdict awarding damages to a minor for injuries sustained when struck by a train. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the verdict, rejecting the railroad's arguments that the court erred in refusing a directed verdict and imprope
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Goulding
  52 Fla. 327· Fla.· 1906-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed a judgment for wrongful death against the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude the railroad was negligent in killing a quarantine guard who was on its tracks.
• City of Miami v. Vilma Marcos
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-02-19 ·cited 1×
  A trial court abuses its discretion when it strikes a party's pleadings and enters default judgment as a sanction for procedural violations if the ultimate sanction is not commensurate with the violation and the court fails to apply proper Kozel factors supported by competent sub
• Kennedy v. AmGUARD Ins. Co.
  2013 WL 12092257· S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-21 ·cited 1×
  The court recommended granting the defendant's motion to amend its affirmative defenses and denying the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint and remand the case.
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Levine
  352 So. 3d 404· Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-04-17 ·cited 1×
  The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in this tobacco liability case involving R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and plaintiff Lauren Levine, upholding the admission of evidence regarding smoking-related deaths and rejecting arguments that trial condu
• Carlo G. Chiarella v. Ford
  383 So. 3d 102· Fla. 4th DCA· 2024-02-21 ·cited 1×
  A party claiming an inconsistent verdict must preserve the issue by raising it before the jury is discharged and specifically requesting that the trial court reinstruct the jury and send it back for further deliberations; an objection alone is insufficient to preserve the issue f
• Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Anny K. Berastain
  388 So. 3d 886· Fla. 3d DCA· 2023-12-13 ·cited 1×
  When reviewing a directed verdict motion in a negligence case, courts must view evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and submit factual questions to the jury if conflicting evidence or reasonable inferences exist. The jury's verdict was supported by substa
• Polynice v. Burger King Corp.
  351 So. 3d 619· Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-10-12 ·cited 1×
  Marie Polynice, who prevailed at jury trial against Burger King Corporation, appealed the trial court's order granting a new trial. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the new trial order, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the multiple clai
• Hamblen v. Pilot Travel Ctrs., LLC
  312 So. 3d 218· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-02-26 ·cited 1×
  The court determined the meaning of "final judgment" in Florida's Wrongful Death Act. It held that a judgment is not final until the trial court's judicial labor is complete, including the resolution of post-trial motions like a motion for a new trial. This decision affirmed a lo
• Dayes v. Werner Enters., Inc.
  314 So. 3d 718· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-01-27 ·cited 1×
  A trial court errs when it allows an expert to testify to inadmissible hearsay without affording the opposing party the opportunity to cross-examine the source, and such error is not harmless when the beneficiary of the error cannot prove there is no reasonable possibility the er
• Manko v. Manko
  273 So. 3d 208· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-05-10 ·cited 1×
  A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to reopen evidence under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(a) without considering proffered evidence of a party's inability to obtain life insurance due to a medical condition discovered after judgment.
• Restal v. Nocera
  268 So. 3d 270· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-04-18 ·cited 1×
  In this negligence case involving a rear-end vehicle collision, the Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the appellant was negligent as a matter of law but reversed the finding that he was solely at fault, holding that disputed material facts regarding
• Zamot v. State
  262 So. 3d 260· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-01-09 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court reversed the trial court's apportionment of fault, finding the defendant motorist only 20% negligent and the 12-year-old bicycle rider 80% negligent, where the child suddenly emerged from behind a parked truck into the defendant's path despite the defendant dr
• Marsh v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  268 So. 3d 727· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-12-05 ·cited 1×
  In tobacco litigation, the plaintiff appeals a judgment reducing her compensatory damages based on comparative negligence findings. The court reverses, holding that under Florida Supreme Court precedent (Schoeff), compensatory damages awarded on intentional tort claims cannot be
• Lyndell J. Cooks v. State
  249 So. 3d 774· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-06-28 ·cited 1×
  A conviction for scheme to defraud under Florida Statutes section 817.034(4)(a) requires proof of fraudulent misrepresentation or intent to defraud beyond mere theft; repeated shoplifting without any false representation does not constitute a scheme to defraud.
• Connolly v. Theta CHI Fraternity, Inc.
  1020 W. 18· Del. Super. Ct.· 2018-02-28 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for all defendants, holding that no defendant owed a duty to the deceased student, that no defendant breached any duty, and that the student's own conduct, including gross intoxication, was the sole proximate cause of his death. De
• Holmes Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  225 So. 3d 780· Fla.· 2017-07-13 ·cited 1×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a party with an unsatisfied judgment cannot assert an equitable subrogation claim against a subsequent tortfeasor without first fully paying the injured party's damages. The Court reversed the Fifth District's decision allowing contingent subro
• Arellano v. Broward K-9/Miami K-9 Servs., Inc.
  207 So. 3d 351· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-11-30 ·cited 1×
  Lisa Arellano appeals a summary judgment dismissing her strict liability dog bite claim against K-9, which had owned guard dogs that escaped and bit her while she was trying to help them. The court reversed, holding that Florida's dog bite statute imposes strict liability on dog
• Santos v. Brink
  167 So. 3d 519· Fla. 5th DCA· 2015-07-02 ·cited 1×
  In a negligence action arising from a motor vehicle collision where a motorcycle rider suffered serious brain injuries, the appellate court affirmed the jury verdict and most trial court rulings but reversed and remanded regarding the judgment amount against the vehicle owner, ho
• Hartong v. William Bernhart, M.D., Roy Liptrap, P.A.
  128 So. 3d 858· Fla. 5th DCA· 2013-12-06 ·cited 1×
  Paula Hartong, as personal representative of her deceased daughter's estate, appealed a negligence and wrongful death judgment against medical defendants. The Fifth District reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the lower court abused its discretion by denying Harto
• Mayuris Disla v. Blanco
  129 So. 3d 398· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-11-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a challenge for cause, admitting certain cross-examination testimony, or admitting expert testimony, and that the exclusion of a medical record was not reversible error given the jury's verdict.
• Westchester Fire Ins. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.
  1991 WL 188732· S.D. Fla.· 2013-06-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the primary insurer (Mid-Continent) acted in bad faith by failing to notify the excess insurer (Westchester) of a significant post-verdict settlement offer, even though its pre-verdict conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith.
• Martin v. Brubaker
  87 So. 3d 797· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-04-20 ·cited 1×
  In this personal injury case, the jury found that the defendant's admitted negligence was not the legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries and awarded no damages. The appellate court affirmed the causation finding but reversed on damages, holding that once liability is admitted an
• Drew v. Tenet ST. Mary's, Inc.
  46 So. 3d 1165· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-11-03 ·cited 1×
  Joyce Drew appeals a judgment against her in a medical malpractice case, arguing the trial court erred in denying her motion for directed verdict on comparative negligence. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that Drew's prior knowledge of Ativan's effects and he
• Cooke v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
  14 So. 3d 1192· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-06-22 ·cited 1×
  Barbara Cooke appealed the dismissal of her wrongful death suit against Nationwide, UPS, Ramirez, and Carrera Transport. The court reversed summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff's decedent's alleged negligence was not an unforeseeable intervening cause breaking the chain o