Contributory Negligence

4,344 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• United States v. Jumelia M. DeVANE
  306 F.2d 182· 5th Cir.· 1962-08-15 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the government's negligence in cancelling a search and rescue operation, which worsened the decedent's position, could lead to liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but remanded for specific findings on the worsening of position and potential contributo
• Brown v. Chapman
  304 F.2d 149· 9th Cir.· 1962-05-24 ·cited 29×
  The court held that under Hawaii law, privity is not required for a breach of implied warranty claim involving a dangerous instrumentality, and contributory negligence does not bar recovery for breach of warranty if it merely tests the warranty.
• Bowser v. Harder
  98 So. 2d 752· Fla. 2d DCA· 1957-11-27 ·cited 29×
  In this negligence case involving an intersection automobile accident, the defendant appeals a jury verdict awarding $17,500 to the plaintiff-wife but $0 to the plaintiff-husband. The defendant contends the verdict is inconsistent and reflects a finding of contributory negligence
• Martin v. Rivers
  72 So. 2d 789· Fla.· 1954-05-21 ·cited 29×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict awarding $10,000 to a widow for her husband's death caused by a train operated by the railroad, holding that the deceased's negligence in failing to look or listen before crossing railroad tracks was the sole proximate cause and e
• Faulk v. Parrish
  58 So.2d 523· Fla.· 1952-03-25 ·cited 29×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a plaintiff's own negligence, if it appears on the face of the declaration or is established by uncontradicted evidence, can bar recovery. The court found the plaintiff's declaration and evidence demonstrated his contributory negligence as a ma
• Petroleum Carrier Corp. v. Robbins
  52 So. 2d 666· Fla.· 1951-04-06 ·cited 29×
  The Supreme Court of Florida reversed a jury verdict awarding damages to a widow whose husband was killed in a car accident. The court found that the husband's own negligence, including excessive speed and failure to brake, was the proximate cause of the accident, thus barring re
• Heitman v. Davis
  127 Fla. 1· Fla.· 1937-01-20 ·cited 29×
  In this negligence case arising from an automobile collision, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict awarding $3,000 to a minor plaintiff, rejecting the defendant driver's challenge to the jury instructions, the sufficiency of evidence, and the verdict amount.
• Union Bus Co. v. Smith
  104 Fla. 569· Fla.· 1932-03-26 ·cited 29×
  An administrator sued a bus company for wrongful death damages after Eula Smith, a 21-year-old passenger, was killed in a collision between the bus and an automobile driven by her brother. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the $4,000 judgment, holding the judgment excessive and
• Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Avor Young
  104 Fla. 541· Fla.· 1932-03-25 ·cited 29×
  Florida East Coast Railway Company appeals a wrongful death judgment of $6,000 awarded to the widow of a railroad laborer killed by a train. The Supreme Court of Florida reverses, finding the deceased was grossly negligent, the judgment excessive, and the trial court committed re
• McINNIS v. A.M.F., Inc.
  765 F.2d 240· 1st Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a plaintiff's settlement with a third-party tortfeasor to prove causation was error under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, requiring a new trial.
• Crane v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  731 F.2d 1042· 2d Cir.· 1984-03-30 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering a new trial on damages, as the issue of contributory negligence was separable from damages and the damages award was not tainted. However, the court affirmed the district court's discretion to order a new tr
• Hylazewski v. WET 'N Wild, Inc.
  432 So. 2d 1371· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-06-16 ·cited 28×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a dismissal, holding that a patron's complaint sufficiently alleged negligence against a water park. The patron claimed she was injured by an inflatable raft hurled by a wave machine, a danger she was unaware of and the park failed to
• Roberts v. Williams-McWILLIAMS Co., Inc.
  648 F.2d 255· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-16 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Roberts was a seaman as a matter of law and that Williams must indemnify Exxon under their contract, but affirmed the denial of the unseaworthiness claim and the jury's damage allocation.
• Seese v. Volkswagenwerk A. G.
  648 F.2d 833· 3d Cir.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that North Carolina law does not recognize strict liability in tort for product defects, but does allow recovery for enhanced injuries under a crashworthiness theory. The exclusion of seat belt evidence was proper.
• Gertrude Reminga v. United States
  631 F.2d 449· 6th Cir.· 1980-10-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the government's issuance of a 'no hazard' determination for a tower and failure to require guy wire markings were discretionary functions, barring liability under the FTCA. However, liability for publishing an inaccurate aeronautical chart was affirmed.
• Bourque v. Diamond M. Drilling Co.
  623 F.2d 351· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-06 ·cited 28×
  The jury's special interrogatory answers were irreconcilably inconsistent, particularly the award of zero damages despite findings of employer negligence and plaintiff's limited contributory negligence, necessitating a new trial.
• Taenzler v. Burlington Northern
  608 F.2d 796· 8th Cir.· 1979-12-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that expert testimony on future wage increases is admissible in FELA cases, even if it indirectly considers inflation, as long as it is not overly speculative and the jury is properly instructed on present value.
• Bennie Imogene Dunn v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  589 F.2d 408· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that even if the Montreal Agreement was not properly pleaded, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b) allowed amendment to conform the pleadings to the evidence presented at trial, especially since the parties and the court were aware of the agreement's applicability
• Fabian v. E. W. Bliss Co.
  582 F.2d 1257· 10th Cir.· 1978-09-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the manufacturer's duty of reasonable care in design and the principles of strict product liability, and that the trial court did not err in refusing a directed verdict.
• Berona Leon v. City OF Miami
  312 So. 2d 518· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-04-29 ·cited 28×
  Mrs. Leon appealed from a summary judgment dismissing her negligence claim against the City of Miami for injuries sustained from tripping in a sidewalk hole. The court held that the photograph of the defective sidewalk created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the city's
• Williams v. Brasea, Inc.
  497 F.2d 67· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of negligence by Terry was clearly erroneous if Williams gave the order to engage the winch, and that Williams' contributory negligence was not a proximate cause if Terry acted without an order. The court reversed the products liabili
• Kelloch v. S & H Subwater Salvage, Inc.
  473 F.2d 767· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court's apportionment of fault was not clearly erroneous, that Sharecroppers was entitled to indemnification from S & H, and that S & H was entitled to reimbursement from its insurers for damages and attorneys' fees, subject to a limited remand.
• Magill v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  464 F.2d 294· 3d Cir.· 1972-07-14 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the jury's findings on liability were supported by sufficient evidence, but a new trial on damages was required due to the speculative nature of an earnings increase factor and an excessive survival action verdict.
• Anne P. Kozar v. The Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.
  449 F.2d 1238· 6th Cir.· 1971-10-19 ·cited 28×
  Punitive damages are not recoverable under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), and awards for loss of services to adult children and post-majority damages to a minor son are vacated due to lack of evidence of pecuniary loss.
• Mroz v. Dravo Corp.
  429 F.2d 1156· 3d Cir.· 1970-07-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in directing a verdict on the 1961 claim due to the statute of limitations and laches, nor in submitting issues of contributory negligence to the jury for the 1961 and 1965 claims, and that the jury could reasonably find negligence
• Humble OIL & Ref. Co. v. The TUG Crochet
  422 F.2d 602· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the tug owner was negligent for grounding its tow on a known wreck outside the channel, and the owner of the sunken barge was liable for failing to remove it, contributing to the collision.
• Meadows & Walker Drilling Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  417 F.2d 378· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-27 ·cited 28×
• Flentie v. Am. Cmty. Stores Corp.
  389 F.2d 80· 8th Cir.· 1968-02-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the issue of negligent passing to the jury, nor in its jury instructions regarding the burden of proof for contributory negligence.
• Maas Bros., Inc. v. Bishop
  204 So. 2d 16· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-11-08 ·cited 28×
  Maas Bros., Inc. appeals from a jury verdict awarding damages to the heirs of a woman who slipped and fell on a worn metal strip on a store step. The court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of negligence, was not contributorily negligent as a mat
• Compania Trasatlantica Espanola, S.A. v. Torres
  358 F.2d 209· 1st Cir.· 1966-03-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Puerto Rico Civil Code Section 1802 encompasses wrongful death actions based on unseaworthiness, and that a shipowner is entitled to indemnity from a stevedoring contractor for breach of the warranty of workmanlike service. However, the award for the decedent'
• Misurella v. Isthmian Lines, Inc.
  328 F.2d 40· 2d Cir.· 1964-02-24 ·cited 28×
  The owner's failure to provide ship's ventilators after notice does not bar indemnity against the stevedore who breached its warranty of workmanlike service.
• Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Lawler
  151 So. 2d 852· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-04-09 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury charges or in refusing to grant a new trial based on an excessive verdict.
• Manganaro v. The Delaval Separator Co.
  309 F.2d 389· 1st Cir.· 1962-11-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the decedent's actions in standing by his disabled vehicle in a travel lane during a snowstorm, with his back to oncoming traffic, constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law.
• Jacksonville Coach Co. v. Rivers
  144 So. 2d 308· Fla.· 1962-07-13 ·cited 28×
  A bus passenger sued Jacksonville Coach Company for injuries sustained when she was thrown from her seat during a sudden bus stop. The Florida Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's evidence of a sudden stop and fast speed, without proof of what caused the stop or how the driver
• Burr Atkinson, Jr. v. Roth
  297 F.2d 570· 3d Cir.· 1961-10-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its jury instructions and special interrogatories, which were confusing and inadequate, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
• Finley P. Smith, Inc. v. Schectman
  132 So. 2d 460· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-08-30 ·cited 28×
  Finley P. Smith, Inc. appeals jury verdicts awarding damages to the Schectmans for personal injuries sustained when their automobile went out of control on a rough, unpaved section of highway under construction. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a road contractor under c
• THE Oil Screw Noah's ARK & Charles E. Graham v. Bentley & Felton Corp.
  292 F.2d 437· 5th Cir.· 1961-06-30 ·cited 28×
  A salvor's negligence in casting off a distressed vessel without warning can lead to liability for damages, even if the initial salvage service was otherwise successful.
• Kennedy v. Pa. R.R. Co.
  282 F.2d 705· 3d Cir.· 1960-09-14 ·cited 28×
  The Railroad is entitled to recover from Steel the amount of the judgment paid to Kennedy due to Steel's failure to maintain the crossing.
• Higinio Alvarez Valdes v. Karoll's, Inc.
  277 F.2d 637· 7th Cir.· 1960-04-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence of the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's freedom from contributory negligence to warrant submission to the jury, and the trial court erred in entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Lewis v. Nelson
  277 F.2d 207· 8th Cir.· 1960-04-14 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that the defendant drove on the wrong side of the highway, thus a submissible case was not made.
• Holley v. THE S.S. Manfred Stansfield
  269 F.2d 317· 4th Cir.· 1959-07-09 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Virginia Wrongful Death Act, when applied in admiralty, incorporates the maritime rule of comparative negligence, not the common law bar of contributory negligence.
• Luther v. Forrest E. Maple and Donna Maple
  250 F.2d 916· 8th Cir.· 1958-01-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court's dismissal of Ruth Hafner's counterclaim was error, entitling her estate to a trial, but affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs against L. G. Hafner's estate.
• Martin v. Maynard R. Tindell
  98 So. 2d 473· Fla.· 1957-11-13 ·cited 28×
  A railroad traveling mechanic sued under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for injuries sustained when he slipped on water leaking from a faulty air conditioning unit, which had been repeatedly reported to the railroad prior to the accident. The trial court awarded $125,000, a
• Iva J. Andrews and Harry J. Andrews v. Cardosa
  97 So. 2d 43· Fla. 2d DCA· 1957-09-18 ·cited 28×
  Iva and Harry Andrews appealed a jury verdict awarding them $2,000 and $500 respectively for injuries and property damage from a vehicle collision. The court affirmed the judgment, rejecting claims that the verdict was grossly inadequate and that various trial court procedural ru
• Elvera v. McNAMARA
  247 F.2d 445· 5th Cir.· 1957-07-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the defendant, as the evidence did not demonstrate that the alleged defect existed before the accident or that it was caused by the defendant's negligence
• Chicago v. Williams
  245 F.2d 397· 8th Cir.· 1957-06-06 ·cited 28×
  A railroad company is liable for common law negligence if it furnishes a defective car that injures a shipper's employee, even if the shipper is also negligent.
• Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Allen
  224 F.2d 110· 5th Cir.· 1955-06-28 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge believes the question of contributory negligence should have been decided by the jury, not the court.
• Moore v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., Inc.
  223 F.2d 214· 5th Cir.· 1955-06-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that plaintiffs' claims of error were without merit, either because the issues were properly submitted to the jury, the alleged errors were not preserved, or the errors, if any, were harmless.
• Erie R. Co. v. Lade
  209 F.2d 948· 6th Cir.· 1954-02-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the issue of Lade's contributory negligence was a question for the jury and that the trial court did not err in admitting Lade's statement or in its jury instructions.
• Allen v. Nelson Dodd Produce Co.
  207 F.2d 296· 10th Cir.· 1953-10-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to properly object to jury instructions before they were given precludes appellate review of those instructions.