Contributory Negligence

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

• Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Davis Frozen Foods, Inc.
  195 F.2d 662· 4th Cir.· 1952-04-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of the defendant's negligence, as the evidence clearly established the truck driver's negligence. However, the court found no error in submitting issues of plaintiff's contributory
• Higashi v. Shifflett
  195 F.2d 784· D.C. Cir.· 1952-03-20 ·cited 28×
  The trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the defendant negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the accident.
• Stephenson v. Steinhauer
  188 F.2d 432· 8th Cir.· 1951-04-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments for reversal lacked merit, affirming the jury's verdict and the trial court's judgment.
• Kreste v. United States
  158 F.2d 575· 2d Cir.· 1946-12-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial judge's conclusion of non-negligence was not supported by sufficient findings of fact, requiring a remand.
• The Miami Beach Ry. Co. v. Dohme
  131 Fla. 171· Fla.· 1938-02-16 ·cited 28×
  In this negligence action arising from a collision between a private automobile and a street car in Miami Beach, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that the trial court erred in its jury instructions by failing to properly present the doc
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Gornto
  89 Fla. 97· Fla.· 1925-02-07 ·cited 28×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict awarding damages to a motorist injured in a collision with a railroad train at a highway crossing, holding that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable prudence when attempting to cross in front of a rapidly approaching train
• McKinney v. Adams
  68 Fla. 208· Fla.· 1914-11-06 ·cited 28×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment dismissing a wrongful death action brought by an administratrix against the operator of a public bath house at Pablo Beach. The court held that a business operator who offers public waters for bathing to the public for profit assumes
• German-American Lumber Co. v. C. P. Hannah by Next Friend
  60 Fla. 70· Fla.· 1910-06-01 ·cited 28×
  German-American Lumber Company appeals a judgment awarding damages to Hannah for injuries sustained when his clothing caught on a projecting set screw on a revolving shaft at the company's saw mill. The Florida Supreme Court reverses, holding that Hannah's contributory negligence
• Florala Saw Mill Co. v. Smith
  55 Fla. 447· Fla.· 1908-01-01 ·cited 28×
  A minor worker lost fingers to a defective trimming saw at a mill and sued for negligence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $1,000 judgment, holding that an employer must furnish reasonably safe machinery and that the foreman's direction to work at an unweighted, dangerous sa
• The Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. Seymour
  44 Fla. 557· Fla.· 1902-06-01 ·cited 28×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a negligence judgment against a railroad for killing a cow, addressing jurisdictional questions and the improper award of attorney's fees. The court reversed the award of attorney's fees because the defendant had not shown it was constructing fe
• Menendez v. W. Gables Rehab. Hosp., LLC
  123 So. 3d 1178· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-09-18 ·cited 27×
  Menendez sued West Gables Rehabilitation Hospital after being injured when her mother fell during gait training, with Menendez throwing herself to cushion the fall. The trial court granted summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed because Menendez's theories of liability
• Jules Simeon, Sr. v. T. Smith & SON, Inc.
  852 F.2d 1421· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 27×
  The court held that concurrent tortfeasors in maritime law are jointly and severally liable, even when the plaintiff is contributorily negligent, and this rule applies to a Jones Act defendant alongside a general maritime law defendant. The court also found that the jury's award
• Mazzilli v. James W. Doud & the City of Hialeah
  485 So. 2d 477· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-03-25 ·cited 27×
  Mazzilli and Story, DEA agents, were shot by police officer Doud during an arrest operation and sued the City of Hialeah and Doud for personal injury, assault and battery, negligence, and civil rights violations. The court affirmed the directed verdict dismissing the municipal ci
• Burns Miley, Jr. v. DELTA Marine Drilling Co.
  473 F.2d 856· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-19 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial judge's comments were not plain error and that the exclusion of cumulative expert testimony was not grounds for reversal.
• Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc. v. Moroni
  113 So. 2d 275· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-12-12 ·cited 27×
  Food Fair Stores appealed a judgment for a plaintiff who slipped on wet spinach in the defendant's supermarket. The court affirmed the jury verdict, holding that evidence of the store's vegetable handling procedures was properly admitted to establish that the store itself may hav
• Chicago v. Hugh Breeding, Inc.
  247 F.2d 217· 10th Cir.· 1957-07-19 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the speed of the train was not negligence per se under Kansas law, but the railroad's cross-complaint presented jury questions regarding the engineer's reaction time and potential to avoid the collision after seeing the stalled truck.
• Gavoer Manhat v. United States
  220 F.2d 143· 2d Cir.· 1955-02-09 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the shipowner has an absolute responsibility to provide a safe place to work, and unseaworthiness can be a basis for recovery even if negligence is also involved.
• Henley v. Carter
  63 So. 2d 192· Fla.· 1953-02-17 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that contributory negligence is a valid defense in Guest Statute personal injury actions, even though the statute requires proof of 'gross negligence' and 'willful and wanton misconduct.' A guest who voluntarily rides with an intoxicated driver may
• Green v. Atl. Co.
  61 So. 2d 185· Fla.· 1952-10-31 ·cited 27×
  The Supreme Court of Florida reversed a jury verdict for the defendant in a wrongful death action. The court found that the jury instructions given by the trial court were abstract and did not adequately address the specific facts of the case, particularly concerning the defendan
• Miami Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Mahlo
  45 So. 2d 119· Fla.· 1950-03-03 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial judge's order granting a new trial, finding that while a charge on concurrent negligence would have been appropriate, the jury's confusion did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court reinstated the jury's original verdict of no
• Moore v. Am. Scantic Line, Inc.
  121 F.2d 767· 2d Cir.· 1941-07-22 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the jury's finding of negligence was supported by evidence and that the defendant's limitations of liability were void.
• Powell v. Jackson Grain Co.
  134 Fla. 596· Fla.· 1938-10-24 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's directed verdict for a railroad company in a negligence action arising from a train-truck collision at a street crossing, holding that the jury should have decided the conflicting evidence on negligence, contributory negligence,
• St. Andrews Bay Lumber Co. v. Bernard
  102 Fla. 389· Fla.· 1931-07-07 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error filed by St. Andrews Bay Lumber Company because the appellant's brief failed to comply with Florida's Amended Rule 20 regarding proper format and content of appellate briefs. The opinion emphasizes the importance of compliance
• Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Scott
  76 Fla. 336· Fla.· 1918-08-14 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a judgment awarding $5,000 in damages to a pedestrian struck by a bicycle messenger employed by Postal Telegraph Cable Company. The court affirmed the jury's finding of negligence on the company's part and rejected the contributory negligence de
• The "Sunnyside"
  91 U.S. 208· U.S.· 1875-10-01 ·cited 27×
  A steam-tug and a bark collided on Lake Huron in 1869, resulting in the sinking of the tug. The Supreme Court held that both vessels were in fault and damages should be apportioned equally between them, reversing the Circuit Court's determination that only the steam-tug was at fa
• Bosco v. Serhant
  836 F.2d 271· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Chicago Mercantile Exchange was not liable for failing to enforce its rules because its interpretation was not in bad faith, and that the plaintiffs' aiding and abetting claim failed due to lack of evidence. The court also found the jury's damage award, th
• Davis v. United States
  716 F.2d 418· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the government was negligent in failing to adequately warn of subsurface rocks, and that Illinois' comparative negligence statute allows for comparison of the government's willful and wanton misconduct with the plaintiff's negligence.
• Perricone v. The Kan. City S. Ry. Co.
  704 F.2d 1376· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting judgment n.o.v. without a directed verdict motion and in conditionally granting a new trial, but affirmed the jury's damage award and the resubmission of the case to the jury.
• Anderson v. Malloy
  700 F.2d 1208· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that testimony regarding subsequent remedial measures did not raise the issue of feasibility, but rather concerned recommendations.
• Savoie v. Otto Candies, Inc.
  692 F.2d 363· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings that the plaintiff was a Jones Act seaman, that the admission of maintenance payments was not reversible error, and that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Jadranska Slobodna Plovidba
  683 F.2d 1022· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury's finding of no negligence by the shipowner was reasonable, and that the jury instructions, while potentially abstract, were not prejudicial.
• Comeaux v. T. L. James & Co., Inc.
  666 F.2d 294· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of unseaworthiness for the first accident, and that the exclusion of a key witness's deposition regarding the second accident required a new trial on that issue.
• Garwood v. Int'l Paper Co.
  666 F.2d 217· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion in limine, refusing a jury instruction on joint control, giving an instruction on trespasser/licensee liability, denying a special verdict form, or excluding expert testimony.
• Ellis v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.
  650 F.2d 94· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding of negligence against Chevron, and that Chevron could be held liable for its own negligence in creating an unsafe condition, even when an independent contractor was involved. The court also affirmed
• Vilma Tablas Cruz v. Hendy Int'l Co.
  638 F.2d 719· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-12 ·cited 26×
  The spouse of a seaman injured due to vessel unseaworthiness has a general maritime law cause of action for loss of society.
• Darthy Ann Clement v. Rousselle Corp.
  372 So. 2d 1156· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-07-10 ·cited 26×
  Darthy Ann Clement appealed a jury verdict in favor of Rousselle Corporation in a negligence and strict liability suit involving a punch press injury. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the jury could properly consider the employer's negligence as the sol
• Gwendy Wilson v. Crouse-Hinds Co.
  556 F.2d 870· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury instructions on strict liability were erroneous because they improperly allowed the jury to consider the decedent's or employer's contributory negligence and maintenance failures as a defense.
• Jones v. Wittenberg Univ.
  534 F.2d 1203· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff could not reserve the right to appeal after accepting a remittitur.
• Gerrard v. Larsen
  517 F.2d 1127· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that collateral estoppel could not be applied against the decedent's parents in a wrongful death action unless they had a fair and adequate opportunity to participate in the prior litigation where the decedent's negligence was determined.
• Nelson v. Brunswick Corp.
  503 F.2d 376· 9th Cir.· 1974-08-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred in imputing Nelson's contributory negligence to Legion and in giving an instruction on voluntary assumption of risk to Galliher, requiring new trials for those parties.
• Blue v. The W. Ry. OF Ala.
  469 F.2d 487· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding evidence of the plaintiff's gross earnings history and in instructing the jury to consider only net income for future lost earnings. It also erred in instructing the jury to use the then-current interest rate for safe secu
• Neva I. Smith v. Mill Creek Court, Inc.
  457 F.2d 589· 10th Cir.· 1972-03-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding of negligence and that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on contributory negligence or assumption of risk.
• Bowman v. Redding & Co., Inc.
  449 F.2d 956· D.C. Cir.· 1971-02-16 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the last clear chance doctrine does not require the defendant's negligence to have contributed to the plaintiff's peril, only that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the harm after discovering or should have discovered the peril. Regardi
• Gustav Rist v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  254 So. 2d 540· Fla.· 1971-01-07 ·cited 26×
• Hopkins v. Coen
  431 F.2d 1055· 6th Cir.· 1970-09-24 ·cited 26×
  The jury's oral verdict announced in open court, as corrected and affirmed by the jurors, is the legally binding verdict, not the written form. Clerical errors in the form do not invalidate the verdict if substantial rights are not affected.
• McBRIDE v. Loffland Bros. Co. & Travelers Ins. Co.
  422 F.2d 363· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of fifty percent contributory negligence by the appellant.
• Royce D. Johnson v. Rinesmith
  238 So. 2d 659· Fla. 2d DCA· 1969-12-17 ·cited 26×
  The court granted a rehearing, holding that contributory negligence is not a defense to willful and wanton misconduct and that the issue was not foreclosed by pretrial proceedings, thus entitling the appellants to a new trial limited to that issue.
• Meitz v. Garrison
  413 F.2d 895· 8th Cir.· 1969-07-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court properly denied the plaintiff's motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the defendant presented a submissible issue of contributory negligence.
• George v. Conda, II
  222 So. 2d 417· Fla.· 1969-05-14 ·cited 26×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict that had been entered against a minor plaintiff in a negligence case involving a motorbike struck by a car. The court held that the jury's verdict for the plaintiff should be reinstated because the evidence permitted multiple
• Emery v. The N. Pac. R.R. Co.
  407 F.2d 109· 8th Cir.· 1969-02-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the submission of the decedent passenger's contributory negligence to the jury was not justified by the facts or North Dakota law.