Comparative Negligence

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

• Jones v. Rainmaker Lawn Sprinkler Co., Inc.
  306 So. 2d 536· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-01-10
  The court held that the trial court erred in submitting the issue of the appellant's negligence to the jury, as there was no evidence to support such a finding.
• Fulton Distrib. Co. OF Fla. v. First Nat'l Bank OF EAU Gallie
  301 So. 2d 116· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-10-04
• Hotaling v. Plantation Athletic League
  300 So. 2d 709· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-09-27
  This appeal challenges a jury verdict for defendants in a personal injury case. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial because the jury was instructed under the old doctrine of contributory negligence rather than the newly-establish
• Dorta v. Blackburn
  302 So. 2d 450· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-09-17
  A minor plaintiff was injured when a dune buggy operated by a minor defendant overturned. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the assumption of risk defense, instead merging it into comparative negligence. The appellate court reversed, holding that assumption of risk
• Miroslaw Pason v. Westfal-Larson Co., Inc.
  504 F.2d 1226· 9th Cir.· 1974-08-29
  The court held that if a maritime claim is compensated under state law, the insurer's lien must be subject to all conditions and limitations of that state's law, including doctrines that may bar recovery due to employer negligence.
• Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Albert Reed et ux.
  299 So. 2d 60· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-08-27
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiffs' requested comparative negligence instruction and granting a new trial was proper.
• Mathis v. Adler
  295 So. 2d 652· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-06-04
• Jane v. Ubals
  296 So. 2d 593· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-05-29
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed its own affirmance judgment and remanded for a new trial after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Hoffman v. Jones established the doctrine of comparative negligence. The court found that because the plaintiff properly raised th
• Minton v. CNA Ins.
  293 So. 2d 742· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-04-16
  The court held that the doctrine of comparative negligence, adopted in Hoffman v. Jones, applies to cases on appeal where its applicability was properly raised.
• McCLAIN v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  490 F.2d 863· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-11
  The court held that the district court erred by directing a verdict when the evidence warranted jury consideration of comparative negligence.
• Hughry v. The Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co.
  489 F.2d 1037· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-25
  The court held that the jury's award of damages, reduced by comparative negligence, was not an error justifying a new trial.
• Smith v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.
  486 F.2d 943· 5th Cir.· 1973-11-13
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of no negligence by any party and that the trial judge properly denied motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
• Hubbard v. Mt. Sinai Hosp. of Greater Miami, Inc.
  39 Fla. Supp. 73· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1973-08-16
  In this medical malpractice case, the trial court denied the defendant hospital's motion for new trial, affirming a jury verdict for the plaintiff. The court upheld both the res ipsa loquitur jury instruction and the damages award, rejecting the defendant's arguments that the ins
• Jeter v. Star Fish & Oyster Co.
  482 F.2d 457· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-07
  The court held that the defendant was negligent in failing to adequately wash fish slime from the pier, proximately causing the plaintiff's injury, but remanded for a determination of comparative negligence.
• Montes v. Betcher
  480 F.2d 1128· 8th Cir.· 1973-07-11
  The court held that resort owners owe patrons a duty of active vigilance to protect them from foreseeable risks, including submerged debris, and that assumption of risk does not apply when the plaintiff is unaware of the specific risk encountered.
• Millard Scott v. S. Ry. Co.
  472 F.2d 1163· 6th Cir.· 1973-01-30
  The court held that the jury's findings of no negligence by the railway and contributory negligence by the decedent were supported by substantial evidence and were not errors of law.
• Helms v. Cecil Prescott Distribs., Inc.
  37 Fla. Supp. 132· St. Lucie Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1972-07-03
  Court granted motions to dismiss a third-party complaint because Florida law does not permit contribution between joint tortfeasors, and any negligence by third parties would constitute a defense rather than a basis for indemnification.
• Hamilton v. Knight
  260 So. 2d 889· Fla. 4th DCA· 1972-04-14
  In this personal injury case arising from a motor vehicle accident, the trial court granted the defendant's post-trial motion for directed verdict and set aside a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff motorcyclist. The appellate court reversed, holding that the evidence, when vi
• Robbins v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  37 Fla. Supp. 126· Duval Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1972-04-06
  In this post-trial motion hearing in a Federal Employers Liability Act case, the trial court denied plaintiff Robbins' motion for a new trial, finding that the jury verdict was supported by the evidence and that no material prejudice resulted from a juror's statements about railr
• Walters v. Indep. Concrete Prods., Inc.
  259 So. 2d 186· Fla. 2d DCA· 1972-03-15
  A directed verdict for a concrete plant owner in an attractive nuisance case involving a four-year-old child was improper because the evidence presented jury questions on the existence of an attractive nuisance, the defendant's knowledge, negligence, and comparative fault.
• Robke v. J. Weingarten, Inc.
  455 F.2d 196· 8th Cir.· 1972-02-03
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant or in its handling of a written statement, affirming the judgment.
• Nels Larive v. United States
  449 F.2d 150· 8th Cir.· 1971-10-14
  The court held that the indemnity award should be reduced by the amount paid to the plaintiff's wife in a separate action, but affirmed the calculation of interest from the date of the settlement with the plaintiff.
• Leistra v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.
  443 F.2d 157· 8th Cir.· 1971-05-25
  The majority opinion misapplies Nebraska law by finding superseding cause where the jury could have found the manufacturer's negligence was a proximate cause.
• Weed v. Bilbrey
  400 U.S. 982· U.S.· 1970-12-21
• Williams v. Stone Towing Line
  430 F.2d 1266· 4th Cir.· 1970-09-03
  The court held that the finding of contributory negligence was not clearly erroneous, and the reduction in damages was proper.
• Blane Kight v. Lemuel Leroy Beckham
  237 So. 2d 3· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-05-21
  In this negligence case arising from a rear-end collision on Arlington Road in Jacksonville, Florida, the jury found the defendant not negligent as to the plaintiff's claim but awarded damages to the plaintiff's fourteen-year-old daughter. The appellate court affirmed, holding th
• Gardner v. Morrison
  427 F.2d 654· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-08
• Browne v. Bark River Culvert & Equip. Co.
  425 F.2d 3· 7th Cir.· 1970-04-07
  The court held that the jury's apportionment of negligence was supported by credible evidence and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
• Sellars v. Logan Towing Co., Inc.
  414 F.2d 852· 8th Cir.· 1969-08-01
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions and admission of evidence were proper and did not constitute prejudicial error, affirming the jury's verdict.
• Anderson v. The SS Gulf Trader
  415 F.2d 316· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-30
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no clear error in the determination of unseaworthiness, proximate cause, or damages.
• Leonteos v. Haase
  410 F.2d 633· 7th Cir.· 1969-05-13
• Maillard v. Am. Exp. Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.
  406 F.2d 322· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-30
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for the plaintiff and that the jury instructions were not erroneous.
• Hake v. Eagle Picher Co.
  406 F.2d 893· 7th Cir.· 1969-01-29
  The court held that the liability arose out of the use of the truck and that Eagle Picher was 'using' the truck within the meaning of the policy, thus the excess insurance clause controlled.
• Dalldorf v. Higgerson-Buchanan, Inc.
  402 F.2d 419· 4th Cir.· 1968-09-27
  The court held that the plaintiff's conduct constituted contributory negligence, requiring a division of damages.
• O'Connor v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  32 Fla. Supp. 77· Hillsborough Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1968-01-26
  This wrongful death action arose from a collision between a truck-trailer and a train at a grade crossing. The defendant railroad moved for summary judgment based on alleged statutory violations and contributory negligence, but the trial court denied the motion, finding genuine i
• Mrs. Agnes McWHORTER v. Ryder Tank Line, Inc.
  387 F.2d 635· 5th Cir.· 1968-01-04
  The court held that the jury instructions were adequate and that the appellant's other contentions were without merit.
• Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. v. Williams
  199 So. 2d 469· Fla.· 1967-05-24
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed a jury verdict in a railroad injury case and remanded for new trial because the trial court charged the jury under a comparative negligence statute that the Court had previously held unconstitutional in Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Co. v.
• Hammett v. Seastrunk
  365 F.2d 232· 4th Cir.· 1966-08-04
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment denying recovery to both parties, finding that the collisions were unavoidably accidental and that even if negligence was present, it was not the proximate cause of the accidents.
• United States v. Adalberto Velez Tirado
  358 F.2d 939· 1st Cir.· 1966-03-22
  The court held that the trial court's findings on comparative negligence and damages were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the judgment.
• Farrington v. McCONNELL
  183 So. 2d 585· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-02-16
  The court held that a ship owner is not liable for injuries caused by a borrowed ladder not adopted as ship's gear, absent knowledge or reason to know of its defect.
• Perry v. McVEY
  345 F.2d 897· 4th Cir.· 1965-05-13
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the issue of contributory negligence to the jury and in refusing the requested instruction on last clear chance.
• Seaboard AIR Line R. R. Co. v. Hatcher
  171 So. 2d 179· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-01-13
  The court held that there was no reversible error in the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict for wrongful death.
• Arnold Servs., Inc. v. DELTA Motor Lines, Inc.
  325 F.2d 860· 5th Cir.· 1963-12-27
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to submit the issue of agency to the jury and in its instructions on comparative negligence.
• DeJONG v. Buzzell
  304 F.2d 230· 7th Cir.· 1962-06-12
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of causal negligence against the defendant and that the jury's apportionment of negligence was reasonable.
• D. C. Transit Sys., Inc. v. Garman
  301 F.2d 568· D.C. Cir.· 1962-03-29
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying judgment N.O.V. or exoneration, as the jury's findings supported judgments against the appellants and precluded indemnity claims due to the absence of comparative negligence.
• Jenkins v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
  19 Fla. Supp. 62· Duval Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1961-12-19
  In this wrongful death action arising from the sinking of the tug "William L" in 1959, the trial court found that both the vessel's owner (defendant) and the master (plaintiff's decedent) were negligent, apportioning equal blame and awarding the plaintiff $39,759 in damages (redu
• Biltmore Terrace Assocs. v. Kegan
  130 So. 2d 631· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-05-29
  A fifteen-year-old hotel guest suffered permanent paralysis after diving into shallow water from a patio-pool area enclosed by a four-foot wall. The court reversed the jury verdict finding the hotel negligent, holding that no negligence was established as a matter of law and that
• Luke v. Eustis Veazey
  290 F.2d 33· 5th Cir.· 1961-05-04
  An erroneous jury instruction regarding the choice between a safe and unsafe method of descent, which improperly suggested assumption of risk or contributory negligence could bar recovery, requires reversal.
• O'Keefe v. Turner Butler and William A. Hallowes, III
  126 So. 2d 764· Fla. 1st DCA· 1961-01-17
  This case involves a personal injury claim arising from a railroad grade crossing collision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's directed verdict for the railroad, holding that the evidence did not present a reasonable inference of negligence by the train's operators,
• Krolikowski v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  283 F.2d 889· 7th Cir.· 1960-11-04
  The court held that a finding of assumption of risk by the plaintiff is a complete bar to recovery, rendering any inconsistencies regarding comparative negligence immaterial.