Contributory Negligence

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

• Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Gen. Safety Equip. Co.
  213 So. 2d 486· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-08-06 ·cited 26×
  Florida Power & Light Company and Dade County sought indemnification from manufacturers General Safety Equipment Company and Pittman Manufacturing Company for injuries caused when the county's motorized equipment contacted high-voltage power lines. The court affirmed dismissal of
• Paluch v. Erie Lackawanna R.R. Co.
  387 F.2d 996· 3d Cir.· 1968-01-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that contributory negligence was a proper issue for the jury and that the verdict was not so inadequate as to shock the conscience.
• Walsh v. Miehle-Goss-Dexter, Inc.
  378 F.2d 409· 3d Cir.· 1967-05-12 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge believes the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted, finding the plaintiff's conduct constituted negligence per se.
• Jennings v. United States
  374 F.2d 983· 4th Cir.· 1967-03-02 ·cited 26×
  An indemnitor who is not notified of the pendency of litigation against the indemnitee and the settlement negotiations must prove actual liability to the third party in the indemnity action.
• High Voltage Eng'g Corp. v. Pierce
  359 F.2d 33· 10th Cir.· 1966-03-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the case to the jury, as the evidence did not conclusively show equal knowledge of the danger or adequate warning, and the exclusion of the AEC report was proper due to the appellant's failure to segregate admissible p
• Manning v. M/V SEA Road
  358 F.2d 615· 5th Cir.· 1965-12-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding the employee's negligence the sole proximate cause of his injuries, treating the unseaworthiness as a condition, not a proximate cause. However, on rehearing, the court remanded for findings on the applicability of a safe
• Schultz & Lindsay Constr. Co. & Indus. Builders, Inc. v. Erickson
  352 F.2d 425· 8th Cir.· 1965-11-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendants were not statutory employers immune from suit and that the evidence presented jury questions regarding negligence, contributory negligence, and the presumption of ordinary care for an amnesiac plaintiff.
• United States v. Sommers
  351 F.2d 354· 10th Cir.· 1965-09-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that the damages awarded were adequate, affirming the lower court's decision.
• Shirey v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co.
  327 F.2d 549· 5th Cir.· 1964-01-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a jury issue on causation.
• The Gen. Hosp. OF Greater Miami, Inc. v. Gager
  160 So. 2d 749· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-01-28 ·cited 26×
  The court determined that when a testator dies leaving a surviving spouse whom they married after executing their will, and the will makes some provision for that spouse, the burden shifts to the proponent of the will to prove that the provision was intended to disinherit the spo
• Silverii v. Kramer
  314 F.2d 407· 3d Cir.· 1963-02-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the plaintiff was reasonable and that the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Purdon v. Cohen
  126 So. 2d 575· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-02-10 ·cited 26×
  A 60-year-old woman fell over a photographer's tripod in a store and sued for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant based on the plaintiff's deposition statement that the tripod would have been visible if she had been looking in that direction, bu
• Milestone v. Green Tree Corp.
  286 F.2d 258· 4th Cir.· 1961-01-13 ·cited 26×
• Mem'l Hosp. v. Otto Doring
  106 So. 2d 565· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-10-24 ·cited 26×
  A hospital patient suffered a broken arm after allegedly getting out of bed during recovery from a heart attack. The court reversed a jury verdict for the patient, holding that the hospital did not breach the applicable standard of care because the patient's condition and the doc
• Messer v. L. B. Foster Co., Inc.
  254 F.2d 412· 5th Cir.· 1958-04-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions, while not explicitly using the term 'concurrent negligence,' adequately covered the principles of proximate cause and sole proximate cause, thus not constituting reversible error.
• The Greyhound Corp. v. Mrs. Elizabeth Dewey
  240 F.2d 899· 5th Cir.· 1957-01-31 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of negligence and that the trial court did not err in submitting the last clear chance doctrine to the jury.
• Chicago v. Kifer
  216 F.2d 753· 10th Cir.· 1954-10-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the parking of a baggage truck too close to the rails constituted actionable negligence and that the issue of contributory negligence was a question of fact for the jury. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based o
• Chicago v. Dobry Flour Mills, Inc.
  211 F.2d 785· 10th Cir.· 1954-04-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the indemnitee (Railroad) need not prove absolute legal liability to the injured party if the indemnitor (Dobry) denies liability and refuses to defend. The indemnitee's recovery depends on the contract, not the indemnitor's primary tort liability.
• De Eugenio v. Allis-Chalmers MFG. Co.
  210 F.2d 409· 3d Cir.· 1954-02-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury could find the defendant negligent for providing improper instructions on operating a malfunctioning hay baler, and that issues of contributory negligence and assumption of risk were for the jury to decide.
• Hawn v. Pope & Talbot, Inc.
  198 F.2d 800· 3d Cir.· 1952-08-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a bare-boat charterer has a duty to provide a seaworthy vessel and a safe place to work for shore-side workers, and that the admiralty principle of comparative negligence applies to maritime claims, not state contributory negligence rules.
• Preger v. Gomory
  55 So. 2d 541· Fla.· 1951-12-11 ·cited 26×
  The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed a directed verdict for the defendants in a wrongful death action. The court found no evidence of actionable negligence by the defendants, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between the defendants' actions an
• Bailey v. Slentz
  189 F.2d 406· 10th Cir.· 1951-05-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred in entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in granting a new trial on grounds of dissatisfaction with the verdict outside the permissible time limit.
• Kan. City Pub. Serv. Co. v. Shephard
  184 F.2d 945· 10th Cir.· 1950-10-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff's evidence was not so contrary to physical laws or established facts as to warrant overturning the trial court's finding of injury, nor was the plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
• Jaffe v. Philadelphia & W. R. Co.
  180 F.2d 1010· 3d Cir.· 1950-03-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appointment of an administratrix solely to create diversity jurisdiction is permissible if the appointment is valid under state law and the administratrix is the real party in interest. The court also affirmed the lower court's findings of no negligence an
• Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. Inc. v. Smith
  179 F.2d 672· 5th Cir.· 1950-01-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the tanker Sachem was solely at fault for the collision due to its excessive speed and negligent navigation, and the tug Butler was not contributorily negligent.
• State OF Md. v. Manor Real Est. & Tr. Co.
  176 F.2d 414· 4th Cir.· 1949-08-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Housing Authority's negligence in maintaining the premises, which led to a rat infestation and subsequent typhus outbreak, was a substantial factor in the tenant's death, and the government could not claim immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Panama City Transit Co. v. du Vernoy
  159 Fla. 890· Fla.· 1947-12-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the question of negligence was for the jury, and there was sufficient evidence to support their verdict, particularly regarding the bus driver's last clear chance to avoid the accident.
• Margaret Ann Super Mkts., Inc. v. MRS. Esther K. Scholl and Raymond S. Scholl
  159 Fla. 748· Fla.· 1947-11-25 ·cited 26×
  Margaret Ann Super Markets appealed a jury verdict awarding $18,000 to Esther K. Scholl for back and other injuries from a fall on a wet floor in the defendant's store and $2,000 to her husband for loss of consortium. The Florida Supreme Court initially reversed the wife's award
• Dubrock v. Interstate Motor Freight Sys.
  143 F.2d 304· 3d Cir.· 1944-06-16 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying the defendant's motions for judgment n.o.v. and a new trial, and that the jury's verdict was not excessive.
• Chicago v. Muldowney
  130 F.2d 971· 8th Cir.· 1942-10-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the Safety Appliance Act was violated and that this violation was the proximate cause of the employee's death, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings.
• Carter v. J. Ray Arnold Lumber Co.
  83 Fla. 470· Fla.· 1922-04-01 ·cited 26×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's dismissal of an administrator's wrongful death action against a lumber company for negligently operating a log train that killed a man using the company's railroad trestle as a foot path. The court held that the complaint stated
• Smith v. Tampa Elec. Co.
  82 Fla. 79· Fla.· 1921-06-30 ·cited 26×
  In this negligence action arising from a collision between plaintiff's automobile truck and defendant's street car, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a verdict fo
• Taylor v. Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co.
  61 Fla. 455· Fla.· 1911-01-01 ·cited 26×
  The court reversed a judgment that dismissed a personal injury lawsuit. The lawsuit claimed an employer was negligent in hiring an incompetent engineer, leading to an employee's injury. The court found the declaration sufficient to withstand a demurrer, distinguishing the employe
• Jacksonville Elec. Co. v. Schmetzer
  53 Fla. 370· Fla.· 1907-01-01 ·cited 26×
  Jacksonville Electric Company appeals a jury verdict for $200 in a trespass case brought by C. W. Schmetzer, who was injured when the company's electric street car negligently struck his buggy in Jacksonville. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, finding the declarati
• Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Barwick
  51 Fla. 304· Fla.· 1906-01-01 ·cited 26×
  Julia Barwick sued Seaboard Air Line Railway for injuries sustained when struck by a locomotive while crossing railroad tracks on a private path at night. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment for Barwick, holding that the evidence established her own negl
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Woodson
  134 U.S. 614· U.S.· 1890-04-07 ·cited 26×
  A railroad company challenged a Tennessee judgment awarding damages to a child injured while attempting to board a moving train, arguing the verdict lacked evidentiary support and that Tennessee's statute limiting parties to two new trials violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The S
• Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Sorrell
  549 U.S. 158· U.S.· 2007-01-10 ·cited 25×
  The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) requires proof of proximate causation for negligence claims, and the case Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. did not alter this standard, but rather addressed situations with multiple causes.
• Lockard v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co.
  894 F.2d 299· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-19 ·cited 25×
  The court held that pendent party jurisdiction was proper under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) because the statute does not expressly or implicitly prohibit it, unlike the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
• Walt Disney World Co. v. Aloysia Wood
  515 So. 2d 198· Fla.· 1987-11-05 ·cited 25×
  Walt Disney World challenged a judgment holding it jointly and severally liable for 86% of a plaintiff's damages despite the jury finding it only 1% at fault. The Florida Supreme Court answered a certified question affirming that joint and several liability remains viable under F
• Ceja v. Mike Hooks, Inc.
  690 F.2d 1191· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a seaman's failure to seek or obtain a longer tow line was not contributory negligence, but failure to heed warnings to move from a dangerous position could be. The court also reversed the denial of prejudgment interest and the deduction of maintenance from lo
• Woodruff v. Hewitt P. Tomlin, Jr.
  616 F.2d 924· 6th Cir.· 1980-02-21 ·cited 25×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority incorrectly departed from Tennessee law regarding attorney liability for in-court negligence.
• Dayton Tire & Rubber Co. v. Davis
  348 So. 2d 575· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-06-29 ·cited 25×
  Clyde E. Davis sued Dayton Tire and Rubber Company and John Mott's Sunoco Service for the death of his minor son Ronnie, who was killed when a Dayton tire allegedly blew out due to a manufacturing defect. The trial court granted a directed verdict favoring Mott and instructed the
• Taunice J. Vidrine v. The Kan. City S. Ry. Co.
  466 F.2d 1217· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-19 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying new trials for six guest passengers whose damage awards were grossly inadequate, but affirmed the denial for the driver and the decedent's children.
• Dickerson v. Cont'l OIL Co.
  449 F.2d 1209· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-28 ·cited 25×
• Gardner v. Q. H. S., Inc.
  448 F.2d 238· 4th Cir.· 1971-08-31 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in granting judgment for the defendants, as jury issues were presented on theories of negligence and breach of implied warranty, and evidence regarding foreseeability was unduly restricted.
• Guerriero v. Adams
  190 So. 2d 432· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-09-20 ·cited 25×
  In this automobile accident case, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for directed verdict after the plaintiffs presented their case. The appellate court reversed, holding that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of the defendant driver's negligence in attempt
• Carter v. Parker
  183 So. 2d 3· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-02-16 ·cited 25×
  Appellants filed suit for negligence after the plaintiff-wife was injured when tripping over a chair leg in appellees' cocktail lounge. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the pleadings and deposition raised
• Shattuck v. Mullen
  115 So. 2d 597· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-10-30 ·cited 25×
  A pilot collided with another aircraft while landing at an uncontrolled airport in Tampa. The trial court instructed the jury on the last clear chance doctrine, but the appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the doctrine was inapplicable because both pilots' opportun
• Frash v. Sarres
  60 So. 2d 924· Fla.· 1952-10-21 ·cited 25×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury's verdict finding the defendant not guilty in a personal injury case. The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because there was conflicting evidence regarding the defendant's control and negligence, and the def
• Breau v. Whitmore
  59 So. 2d 748· Fla.· 1952-07-01 ·cited 25×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a directed verdict for the defendants in a personal injury case. The court found that the plaintiff's own negligence in failing to observe a scaffold projecting into a hallway was the proximate cause of his injury, despite the defendants' allege