Comparative Negligence

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

• Sumpter v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc.
  123 So. 2d 732· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-10-26
  Bertha Sumpter sued Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. for injuries sustained when she fell while boarding a bus, alleging the driver negligently failed to assist her despite her requests. A jury verdict favored the defendant, and this appeal challenges the jury instructions on the carrie
• Swift & Co. v. Phelps
  273 F.2d 551· 6th Cir.· 1960-01-14
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdicts, and therefore the trial court did not err in overruling motions for directed verdicts and judgments notwithstanding the verdicts.
• Taylor v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc.
  14 Fla. Supp. 118· Duval Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1959-05-05
  In this workers' compensation case under Florida's Hazardous Occupations Act, a 59-year-old employee of Railway Express Agency sued for injuries sustained when his foot slipped on wet metal while unloading acid jugs from an express car. The court granted summary judgment for the
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Teuton
  110 So. 2d 485· Fla. 1st DCA· 1959-03-10
  Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company appeals orders granting new trials on damages only in two separate negligence suits brought by a minor passenger and her father after a train-automobile collision. The appellate court affirmed, finding the jury improperly applied comparative n
• Connors v. Schmidt
  257 F.2d 146· 6th Cir.· 1958-05-22
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions and subsequent interrogatories regarding contributory negligence were adequate and not reversible error. The admission of police testimony was also deemed proper.
• Hardy v. Lambert
  252 F.2d 709· 5th Cir.· 1958-02-28
  The court held that the jury could reasonably find that the violation of city ordinances regarding parking and lighting was not the proximate cause of the collision, given the visibility of the truck and trailer due to its lights and flares.
• Guild v. Interstate Transit Corp.
  250 F.2d 59· 1st Cir.· 1957-12-16
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in his instructions or in denying the motion for a new trial, affirming the judgment for the defendant.
• Lincoln City Lines, Inc. v. Schmidt
  245 F.2d 600· 8th Cir.· 1957-06-14
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions were proper and did not contain reversible error.
• KUS v. United States
  234 F.2d 817· 7th Cir.· 1956-07-06
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and therefore affirmed the judgment for the defendant.
• Josephson v. Am. Emp'rs Ins. Co.
  231 F.2d 416· 5th Cir.· 1956-03-27
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing requested jury instructions or in denying a motion for a new trial, affirming the jury's verdict.
• Stein v. City of Miami Beach
  7 Fla. Supp. 88· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1955-06-24
  A child sued the City of Miami Beach for negligence in operating a public swimming pool after suffering a diving injury. The trial court granted summary judgment against the child based on findings that the child was exceptionally intelligent and should have known the water was s
• Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Gaskin
  203 F.2d 360· 5th Cir.· 1953-04-23
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in submitting the cases to the jury and approving the verdicts.
• Adkins v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co.
  199 F.2d 660· 5th Cir.· 1952-11-07
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions, while not perfectly detailing circumstances for full recovery, did not prejudicially imply contributory negligence as a matter of law and were otherwise correct.
• Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. Gusewelle
  190 F.2d 248· 8th Cir.· 1951-07-03
  The court held that the reasonableness of a driver's conduct in an emergency is a question of fact for the jury, and the jury's verdict, supported by sufficient evidence, must stand.
• Countryman v. Coogler
  157 F.2d 503· 5th Cir.· 1946-10-23
  The court held that the jury verdict for the plaintiff was proper, as the evidence supported a finding of negligence on the part of the truck driver and the victim's actions did not bar recovery under Georgia law.
• Mumma v. Reading Co.
  146 F.2d 215· 3d Cir.· 1944-12-12
  The court held that the railroad's failure to apprise the plaintiff of an approaching train constituted negligence and proximate cause, and that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law under the Federal Employers' Liability Act.
• Madison Operating Corp. v. Patterson
  155 Fla. 280· Fla.· 1944-12-05
  Madison Operating Corporation appeals a $4,500 judgment for injuries sustained by a hotel guest who tripped on a stake protecting grass around palm trees on the hotel's oceanfront property during a wartime blackout. The Florida Supreme Court reverses, finding no actionable neglig
• Powell v. James Etter. L. R. Powell, JR.
  151 Fla. 866· Fla.· 1942-11-20
  Receivers for Seaboard Air Line Railway appealed jury verdicts awarding damages to families of two girls injured in a collision between a passenger train and automobile at a Tampa street crossing. The Court affirmed, holding that conflicting evidence regarding speed, negligence,
• Powell v. Proctor
  143 Fla. 153· Fla.· 1940-05-21
  This case reviews a personal injury and property damage judgment awarded to a plaintiff after a train-automobile collision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding sufficient evidence of the railway company's negligence to submit the case to the jury and
• Wm. R. Kenan, Jr. v. Moore
  142 Fla. 489· Fla.· 1940-03-26
  In this personal injury case, Dr. T. Earl Moore recovered a $50,000 jury verdict against the receivers of the Florida East Coast Railway for injuries sustained when struck by a train at a grade crossing. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the jury verdi
• Pitton v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co.
  144 Fla. 462· Fla.· 1940-03-15
  This case involves a plaintiff suing a railroad company for personal injuries and property damage sustained in a collision between his truck and the company's train. The trial court directed a verdict for the railroad, but the appellate court reversed, finding that conflicting ev
• Legh R. Powell, Jr. v. Cora Edwards as Administratrix
  117 Fla. 114· Fla.· 1934-10-30
  This case involves a wrongful death action under the Federal Employer's Liability Act where a switchman was killed in a collision between a locomotive and an automobile. The court reversed the lower court's judgment, finding a variance between the plaintiff's allegations and the
• Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Fogleman
  117 Fla. 334· Fla.· 1934-01-02
  A railroad employee's widow sued Atlantic Coast Line Railroad for the death of her husband, P.C. Fogleman, who was struck and killed by a switching engine at the railroad's Uceta Yards in 1932. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $15,000 judgment for the plaintiff, finding the r
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Terry
  101 Fla. 515· Fla.· 1931-05-07
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a crossing accident case, finding carelessness on both sides. The court determined the judgment was excessive and required a remittitur to avoid reversal and a new trial.
• Delaney v. Tampa N. R. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 1924-12-17
  An employee of a railroad company sued for personal injuries sustained while working as a brakeman, alleging the defendant violated the Safety Appliance Act by operating a car with a defective air valve. The court held that both assumption of risk and contributory negligence are
• Tampa Elec. Co. v. Limpus
  83 Fla. 537· Fla.· 1922-04-19
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a judgment for automobile repair costs, holding that damages should have been apportioned due to the plaintiff's employee's negligence, as required by statute.
• Saunders v. Bowes
  65 Fla. 477· Fla.· 1913-05-27
  This case involves a collision between an automobile and a motorcycle. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, upholding the jury's finding that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries and that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent.