Comparative Negligence

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

• Kirk v. TJ Palm Beach Assocs. Ltd. P'ship
  976 So. 2d 694· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-03-19 ·cited 1×
• Vidal v. Delores MacKsoud, M.D. & Delores Macksoud, M.D., P.A.
  933 So. 2d 659· Fla. 3d DCA· 2006-07-12 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defense failed to present sufficient evidence to support the affirmative defense of comparative negligence, and therefore, the issue should not have been submitted to the jury.
• Flores v. Green
  876 So. 2d 631· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-06-16 ·cited 1×
  Florida statutes that discriminate against Florida-licensed nonresident insurance agents by requiring their participation and commission sharing with resident agents, and by denying them surplus lines licenses, violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause and Equal Protection Cla
• Ford Motor Co. v. Jimenez
  870 So. 2d 831· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-08-13 ·cited 1×
  Ford Motor Company appealed a jury verdict in a personal injury case arising from a rollover of a Ford Econoline van. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's evidentiary and procedural rulings but reversed and remanded regarding two damage calculations: the failure to redu
• Mourer & Mourer, Inc. v. Terry
  787 So. 2d 220· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-05-18 ·cited 1×
  Mourer & Mourer, Inc. appeals a trial court's order granting a new trial after a jury verdict in favor of the contractor. The appellate court reverses, finding no evidence supporting the trial judge's conclusion that the jury failed to follow instructions on comparative negligenc
• Alesse v. Baker
  758 So. 2d 1234· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-05-26 ·cited 1×
  Sam's 24 Hour Towing appeals a negligence judgment awarded to the Bakers for Sandra Baker's injuries. The court affirms, rejecting the defendant's argument that the jury failed to reduce future damages to present value merely because the jury's present value awards equaled the st
• Halenda v. Habitat for Humanity Int'l, Inc.
  125 F. Supp. 2d 1361· S.D. Fla.· 2000-01-03 ·cited 1×
  Habitat for Humanity International, Inc. is not vicariously liable for the negligence of Jack or Lois Wolters because neither was acting as an agent or employee within the scope of employment at the time of the accident.
• Maloney v. Williams
  732 So. 2d 415· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-04-16 ·cited 1×
  In this negligence appeal, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a jury verdict for Williams and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of Williams' failure to wear a seat belt and by allowing damages for brain injury to g
• In re Air Crash Near Cali
  24 F. Supp. 2d 1340· S.D. Fla.· 1998-02-25 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Florida law, rather than federal common law or the laws of Arizona or Colorado, governs the contribution claims, and denied the third-party defendants' motions for summary judgment.
• Horn v. Marine Hospitality Corp.
  745 So. 2d 329· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-02-04 ·cited 1×
  Horn appealed a jury verdict awarding him only $200 for a knee injury allegedly sustained in an accident, with the award reduced 99% due to comparative negligence. The appellate court affirmed without opinion, and Horn moved for rehearing arguing the case deserved a written opini
• Valente v. Resort Enters., Inc.
  700 So. 2d 732· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-09-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the jury should not have been permitted to consider comparative negligence when it was not properly pleaded or supported by evidence.
• Scruggs v. United States
  959 F. Supp. 1537· S.D. Fla.· 1997-03-20 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the United States was not liable under the FTCA because the USAF did not owe an actionable duty to the civilian pilot, and the pilot's own negligence was the sole proximate cause of the incident.
• Mikes v. The City OF Hollywood
  687 So. 2d 1381· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-02-26 ·cited 1×
  In this personal injury appeal, the court reversed a trial court's decision allowing a defendant city to set off settlement proceeds from a non-settling tortfeasor against a plaintiff's jury verdict. The court held that when a settling defendant agrees to apportion settlement fun
• Hardee v. Cunningham & Smith, Inc.
  679 So. 2d 1316· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-10-02 ·cited 1×
  A jury may consider a patron's comparative negligence when they patronize an unattended business in a known high-crime area, even if the patron claims ignorance of specific criminal activity.
• Foster v. United States
  858 F. Supp. 1157· M.D. Fla.· 1994-04-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff was 50% comparatively negligent, significantly exaggerating her injuries, and thus awarded minimal damages. The husband's derivative claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Byrnes v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
  845 F. Supp. 875· S.D. Fla.· 1994-02-28 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not expressly preempt state law product liability claims regarding vehicle lighting, and that the obviousness of a lighting defect is a question of comparative negligence, not a bar to liability.
• Warner/Elektra/Atlantic Corp. v. Cnty. OF DuPAGE
  991 F.2d 1280· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-19 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that comparative negligence principles apply to inverse condemnation claims under the Illinois Constitution, and dismissed the county's cross-appeal.
• Myrtle Grove, Inc. v. Taylor
  614 So. 2d 22· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-02-17 ·cited 1×
  Myrtle Grove appeals a negligence judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages to Irma Taylor. The court reverses the trial court's order granting a new trial on punitive damages, holding that gross negligence alone cannot support punitive damages in Florida—the conduct mu
• Winchester v. Lester's OF Minn., Inc.
  983 F.2d 992· 10th Cir.· 1993-01-12 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' warranty claims sound in contract, not tort, entitling them to the UCC's four-year statute of limitations, and that the contractual limitation of damages is void under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act.
• Hogle v. Lowe's OF Fla., Inc.
  591 So. 2d 1095· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-01-02 ·cited 1×
  A Florida appellate court reversed a directed verdict for a store in a negligence case involving a customer injured by a carpet cutting tool left in an aisle. The court found the trial judge abused its discretion by refusing to allow the plaintiff to recall and further question t
• Pennell v. Keene Bros. Trucking, Inc.
  589 So. 2d 965· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-11-06 ·cited 1×
  The Pennells appealed after the trial court granted a mistrial based on jury misconduct (a juror's use of an accounting book in deliberations) and then entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the defendant. The appellate court reversed the judgment notwithstanding the ve
• PIC N' Save W. Fla. Corp., Inc. v. Sprague
  589 So. 2d 313· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-09-12 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court held that allowing testimony about an inapplicable industry standard was prejudicial error, requiring a new trial.
• Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. King
  568 So. 2d 990· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-10-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing a requested jury instruction on legal causation and in striking the defense of comparative bad faith.
• Bodine v. Fed. Kemper Life Assurance Co.
  912 F.2d 1373· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court correctly interpreted its prior order and that Florida's significant discernible physical injuries rule, not the physical impact doctrine, applies to a Lopez claim. The court also found the jury's award for pain and suffering to be excessive
• Est. OF C.M. Largent, III v. United States
  910 F.2d 497· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-06 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the pilot's negligence was more than slight compared to the FSS Specialists' negligence was not clearly erroneous.
• Jerri Taletha Holman v. Mark N. Goldschmidt, M.D.
  550 So. 2d 499· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-10-11 ·cited 1×
  In this medical malpractice case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a jury verdict for a pediatrician, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the jury to consider whether the physician was liable for the negligent acts of a covering physi
• Prudential Lines, Inc. v. McALLISTER Bros., Inc.
  801 F.2d 616· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-19 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the doctrine of last clear chance is no longer applicable in admiralty cases and that liability should be allocated based on comparative fault. It also affirmed the finding of negligence but reversed the award for loss of use damages pending a determination of
• Linda and Randy Arhart v. Micro Switch Mfg. Co.
  798 F.2d 291· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-05 ·cited 1×
  A trial court did not err by informing the jury of the fact of a settlement with a joint tortfeasor but not the amount, and the method of submitting liability and damages issues to the jury was within the court's discretion.
• Donaldson v. United States
  634 F. Supp. 735· S.D. Fla.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Arizona law should be applied to determine the liability of the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act because Arizona has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties.
• Associated Home Health Agency, Inc. v. Lore
  484 So. 2d 1389· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-03-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the trial court's order, which focused solely on comparative negligence, was supported by the evidence presented, and that statutory defenses also provided a basis for affirmance.
• Terrell v. United States
  783 F.2d 1562· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-13 ·cited 1×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars a suit against the Florida Department of Transportation in federal court, even if jurisdiction over a federal claim against the United States exists, and the United States is not liable for injuries occurring on property it owned but did not control or
• Moore v. Powell
  480 So. 2d 137· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-12-11 ·cited 1×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of appellants' motion to vacate a default judgment. The court held that appellants failed to demonstrate excusable neglect because their reliance on an insurance carrier to defend the litigation was unreasonabl
• Gomez v. Hawkins Concrete Constr. Co.
  623 F. Supp. 194· N.D. Fla.· 1985-09-11 ·cited 1×
  An attorney who undertakes to represent a client in a transaction, even if not formally retained for that specific matter, owes a fiduciary duty and a duty of care, and can be held liable for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty for failing to disclose material information and
• Williams Ex Rel. Williams v. United States
  608 F. Supp. 269· S.D. Fla.· 1985-04-09 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the United States was liable for the negligence of its employee, but that the adult plaintiff's negligence would reduce her recovery by 50%. The court also denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to seek increased damages.
• Wills v. Snapper Creek Nursing Home, Inc.
  465 So. 2d 562· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-03-12 ·cited 1×
  Ralph Wills appealed a directed verdict against him in a loss of consortium claim arising from injuries to his wife Marilyn at a nursing home. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred in directing a verdict and that the wife's testimony ab
• United States Lines, Inc. v. Newport News Shipbuilding & DRY Dock Co.
  688 F.2d 236· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-01 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of primary liability against Newport, Bethlehem, and TEI were supported by the record, but reversed the determination that Bethlehem was entitled to indemnification from Newport.
• Henretig v. United States
  490 F. Supp. 398· S.D. Fla.· 1980-05-29 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the government was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries because the conditions of the trail were obvious, the decision not to develop the area with boardwalks and handrails was discretionary, and the plaintiff's own negligence caused her fall.
• Charles Ermon Hamm et ux. v. City OF Milton
  358 So. 2d 121· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-05-04 ·cited 1×
  Mrs. Hamm sued the City of Milton for injuries sustained in an automobile collision, and her husband sued for derivative damages. The court affirmed the trial court's reduction of their jury verdict awards by applying comparative negligence to the husband's derivative claim and o
• Ivy Edwards v. Cal. Chem. Co.
  245 So. 2d 259· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-02-19 ·cited 1×
  An illiterate worker sued for arsenic poisoning from using a lead arsenate pesticide, claiming the manufacturer and seller failed to adequately warn of necessary protective equipment. The court reversed summary judgment, holding that the adequacy of warning labels for inherently
• Weekley v. Howard
  210 So. 2d 453· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-05-07 ·cited 1×
  In this negligence case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a jury verdict finding automobile dealer Weekley liable for injuries caused by a vehicle with defective brakes at a car wash facility. The court held that mere ownership of the vehicle was insufficient to impo
• J. D. Ball Ford, Inc. v. Roitman
  206 So. 2d 661· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-02-06 ·cited 1×
  The trial court erred in giving a jury charge on the last clear chance doctrine because the facts did not support its application.
• GEE v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
  384 F.2d 704· 5th Cir.· 1967-10-20 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its jury instructions, admission of evidence, or the jury's verdicts.
• Faherty v. Wittenberg
  203 So. 2d 52· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-09-26 ·cited 1×
  In this personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision, the plaintiff-appellant challenges a jury verdict in favor of the defendants. The appellate court affirms the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's instruction on the doctrine of last clear chance.
• Price v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co.
  186 So. 2d 261· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-05-10 ·cited 1×
  In this FELA case, an employee injured while working for a railway company received a $25,000 jury verdict. The court affirmed the verdict, rejecting the employee's arguments that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that assumption of risk is not a defense and by no
• Roland v. Jumper Creek Drainage Dist.
  S.D. Fla.· 1925-02-14 ·cited 1×
  Fifty-two Florida landowners sued a drainage district contractor for negligence in opening a canal that diverted water from a higher basin into a lower basin without first constructing adequate drainage outlets, causing flooding and crop damage. The court held that a contractor p
• Sea World Parks & Ent., LLC v. Abougamal
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2026-09-09
  A visitor's status as a business invitee can change to that of an uninvited licensee or trespasser when the visitor crosses the boundaries of the invitation and goes to areas of the premises beyond the scope of the invitation. When a minor purchased a ticket to an amusement park
• Sea World Parks & Ent., LLC v. Abougamal
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2026-09-09
  A visitor's status as a business invitee extends only to those portions of premises included within the invitation and reasonably anticipated for the invitee's use; when a visitor crosses the boundaries of the invitation, his status changes to that of an uninvited licensee or tre
• PGA Nat'l Resort & Spa v. Ginsburg
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2026-09-09
  The trial court erred in taking judicial notice of an expired Florida Building Code provision as mandatory public statutory law, failing to provide procedural notice and opportunity to be heard, and admitting the provision without determining whether it applied to the case. The j
• Angel v. White
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2026-07-10
  A directed verdict in a negligence action is improper when conflicting expert testimony exists regarding the sequence of events and causation; the trial court may not weigh competing expert opinions or reject one expert's testimony as physically impossible based on another expert
• Corina Dawson Parker v. Hotel Lake Placid, LLC
  Fla. 6th DCA· 2026-06-12
  A property owner is not liable for injuries to an invitee when the invitee fails to exercise reasonable care for her own safety and the dangerous condition would have been obvious upon ordinary use of the senses.