Contributory Negligence

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

• Fuller v. Darnell
  100 Fla. 773· Fla.· 1930-09-11 ·cited 25×
  A father sued for damages resulting from his daughter's death in an automobile accident caused by the defendant's negligent driving. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a $7,500 judgment, holding that the father could not recover for the mother's mental pain and suffering (they we
• DeLONG v. The Wickes Co.
  545 So. 2d 362· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-05-26 ·cited 24×
  In this personal injury appeal, the DeLongs challenged a jury verdict awarding minimal damages following a vehicular collision caused by a Wickes Lumber employee. The court reversed the trial court's denial of a directed verdict on the seat belt defense due to insufficient proof
• Monahan v. Flannery
  755 F.2d 678· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the jury instructions were erroneous because they failed to properly account for a statute exempting highway workers from certain traffic rules and failed to instruct on the driver's duty to sound her horn.
• Tullos v. Res. Drilling, Inc.
  750 F.2d 380· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a seaman can sue a vessel owner under general maritime law for negligence, and a wife's loss of consortium claim is valid if the seaman recovers under general maritime law. The court also held that the issue of arbitrary and capricious denial of maintenance an
• Bohemia, Inc. v. The Home Ins. Co.
  725 F.2d 506· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the primary insurer was neither negligent nor acting in bad faith in its investigation and refusal to settle a wrongful death claim, and affirmed the district court's judgment.
• Verrett v. McDONOUGH Marine Serv.
  705 F.2d 1437· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court's findings of negligence against Superior Oil and Boudreaux Towing, and the finding of no contributory negligence by the plaintiff, were not clearly erroneous, but the award of damages for future pain was erroneous.
• Gross v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc.
  695 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the employer's negligence as relevant to a sole cause defense, nor in denying motions for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict on claims of negligence, gross negligence, contributory negl
• Robert v. Conti Carriers & Terminals, Inc.
  692 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that numerous alleged trial errors, including evidentiary rulings and jury instructions, did not constitute reversible error, and the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.
• Hall v. Am. S.S. Co.
  688 F.2d 1062· 6th Cir.· 1982-08-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that proof of later corrective measures was inadmissible to show prior unseaworthy conditions, and its admission was not harmless error.
• Martin v. City OF NEW Orleans & David Michell
  678 F.2d 1321· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-25 ·cited 24×
  The trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine when it was raised by the evidence and requested by the defendant.
• The First Nat'l Bank OF Chicago v. Material Serv. Corp.
  597 F.2d 1110· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Material Service's statutory faults contributed to the collision, but also found the decedent, Hart, contributorily negligent, requiring apportionment of damages.
• Rich v. United States Lines, Inc.
  596 F.2d 541· 3d Cir.· 1979-03-06 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the plaintiff failed to present evidence on the theories of liability argued to the district court, despite the concurring judge's view that a negligence claim under land-based theories might have been viable.
• Porterfield v. Burlington N. Inc.
  534 F.2d 142· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict on liability or his motion for a new trial based on an inadequate award.
• Alton Harris & United States v. Quinones
  507 F.2d 533· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in granting a new trial when the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and that the insurance policy was not cancelled according to its terms, thus Wesco acted in bad faith by refusing to settle.
• Fitzsimmons v. City OF Pensacola
  297 So. 2d 107· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-06-20 ·cited 24×
  This case addresses whether the Florida Supreme Court's landmark Hoffman v. Jones decision adopting comparative negligence applies to a personal injury case tried under the prior contributory negligence rule. The appellate court holds that Hoffman applies because comparative negl
• Yates v. United States
  497 F.2d 878· 10th Cir.· 1974-04-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the United States, through its FAA air traffic controllers, was negligent in failing to provide adequate separation and warn of wake turbulence, and this negligence proximately caused the pilot's death.
• McGRATH v. Wallace Murray Corp.
  496 F.2d 299· 10th Cir.· 1974-04-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on a misuse or similar defense theory concerning the plaintiff's strict liability and warranty claims, and that the admission of a credit memo for defective wheels was improper.
• Julian v. Mitsui O. S. K. Lines, Ltd.
  479 F.2d 432· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-23 ·cited 24×
• De Raine O. Andry v. Farrell Lines, Inc.
  478 F.2d 758· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict and that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, were adequate.
• Arney v. United States
  479 F.2d 653· 9th Cir.· 1973-05-11 ·cited 24×
  Summary judgment is inappropriate when material facts are disputed, particularly regarding the significance of aircraft alterations and their impact on flight permits and negligence claims.
• Haughton v. Blackships, Inc.
  462 F.2d 788· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that retirement benefits derived from a fund established by the employer as a fringe benefit or deferred compensation, even if solely funded by the employer, are not deductible from damages under the collateral source rule.
• Fershtman v. Schectman
  450 F.2d 1357· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims did not arise under federal securities laws, and the dismissal should have been for lack of federal jurisdiction rather than failure to state a claim.
• Humble OIL & Ref. Co. v. Philadelphia Ship Maint. Co., Inc.
  444 F.2d 727· 3d Cir.· 1971-06-03 ·cited 24×
  The findings in the longshoreman's suit against the shipowner are not binding on the stevedore because the stevedore was not a party and did not have a duty to defend. The shipowner must prove the stevedore breached its warranty of workmanlike performance.
• Zatina v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  442 F.2d 238· 8th Cir.· 1971-05-20 ·cited 24×
  The dissenting judge believes the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care despite observing the stairs' defects.
• Yodice v. Koninklijke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij
  443 F.2d 76· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the jury instructions on damages were inadequate, requiring a new trial solely on the issue of damages.
• Hopkins v. Metcalf
  435 F.2d 123· 10th Cir.· 1970-11-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to give a requested jury instruction on sudden emergency because the issue was tried by implied consent.
• Mrs. Barbara Jean Hornsby v. The Fish Meal Co.
  431 F.2d 865· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an action for wrongful death exists in admiralty, allowing for the application of comparative negligence.
• Wallner v. Kitchens OF Sara LEE, Inc.
  419 F.2d 1028· 7th Cir.· 1969-12-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that post-accident alterations are not admissible to show negligence, but can be admitted for other purposes, and that a jury's verdict supported by substantial evidence and damages, while high, will be affirmed.
• O'Brien v. Willys Motors, Inc.
  385 F.2d 163· 6th Cir.· 1967-11-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury on the defendant's burden to prove contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence was an exceptional error that could be reviewed despite no objection being made.
• Wash. Hosp. Ctr. v. Butler
  384 F.2d 331· D.C. Cir.· 1967-09-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the jury could properly find the hospital and radiologists negligent based on the reasonable person standard, even without extensive expert testimony, because the facts of the case did not solely rely on complex medical science.
• Tyree v. The NEW York Cent. R.R. Co.
  382 F.2d 524· 6th Cir.· 1967-06-30 ·cited 24×
• Upchurch v. Robbie Dean Barnes
  197 So. 2d 26· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-03-31 ·cited 24×
  Margaret Ann Upchurch appeals a jury verdict in her favor regarding an automobile accident that killed her husband and injured her. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's judgment for the defendant, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or j
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Williams
  370 F.2d 839· 5th Cir.· 1966-12-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of subsequent repairs to show the dangerousness of the crossing, nor in refusing to qualify the jury regarding insurance subrogation.
• Harney v. William M. Moore Bldg. Corp. & Lopier Constr. Corp.
  359 F.2d 649· 2d Cir.· 1966-04-07 ·cited 24×
  A plaintiff who has only made a claim and obtained voluntary compensation under an automatic state workmen's compensation statute is not barred from pursuing Jones Act remedies.
• The Unitec Corp. v. Beatty Safway Scaffold Co. OF Or.
  358 F.2d 470· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the contract modification was valid, Safway's contract claims were properly decided, and Safway's negligence claims were supported by evidence. However, the court reversed the denial of Goodyear's contractual indemnity claim against Unitec.
• Shellie Dagley v. The Armstrong Rubber Co. & Armstrong Rubber Mfg. Co.
  344 F.2d 245· 7th Cir.· 1965-04-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a prior consistent statement of a witness, even if not directly related to the impeached portion of testimony, is admissible under Indiana law to corroborate the witness's testimony. The court also held that privity of contract is not required in Indiana for a
• Bohlmann v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  171 So. 2d 23· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-01-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred in determining the arbitration was common law arbitration, but the final decree finding the defendant not liable was correct because no grounds existed to vacate or modify the arbitrator's award under the Florida Arbitration Code.
• Garrett v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  332 F.2d 939· 5th Cir.· 1964-06-05 ·cited 24×
  An air carrier has a duty to anticipate the likelihood that passengers will mishandle hand baggage, creating a hazard to fellow travelers, and must take reasonable steps to guard against such foreseeable dangers.
• Frieda Karl and John Karl v. Ritter
  164 So. 2d 23· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-05-12 ·cited 24×
  The appellate court affirmed a lower court's judgment for the defendants in a personal injury case, finding that the trial judge did not err in refusing two jury instructions on contributory negligence or in denying a motion for a new trial. The court held that the jury instructi
• Muldrow v. Daly
  329 F.2d 886· D.C. Cir.· 1964-02-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying the appellants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, and that the jury's verdict was properly received.
• Jackson v. S. Ry. Co.
  317 F.2d 532· 5th Cir.· 1963-04-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that giving a comparative negligence instruction without supporting evidence was prejudicial error, requiring reversal.
• Massaro v. United States Lines Co.
  307 F.2d 299· 3d Cir.· 1962-08-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the vessel owner's procedural failure to move for a directed verdict barred its claim regarding the sufficiency of evidence for indemnity, and that the evidence supported the jury's verdict.
• Ezekiel v. Volusia S.S. Co. & Suwanee S.S. Co.
  297 F.2d 215· 2d Cir.· 1961-12-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a ship is unseaworthy if a necessary safety appliance, like goggles for chipping rust, is not used, regardless of the owner's efforts to provide it.
• Tribble v. Bruin
  279 F.2d 424· 4th Cir.· 1960-05-30 ·cited 24×
  A district court generally lacks the power to grant a new trial after an appellate court's mandate without first obtaining leave from the appellate court, but the appellate court can grant such leave retroactively.
• McPHERSON v. Gerrit Hoffman
  275 F.2d 466· 6th Cir.· 1960-02-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the third-party complaint did not state a valid claim for indemnity and that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the third-party defendants. The court also found that certain jury instructions were inadequate and that contributory negligence should hav
• Wong v. Swier
  267 F.2d 749· 9th Cir.· 1959-04-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in denying motions for a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Zegan v. Cent. R.R. Co. of N.J.
  266 F.2d 101· 3d Cir.· 1959-03-31 ·cited 24×
• Larnel Builders, Inc. v. Martin
  105 So. 2d 580· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-09-30 ·cited 24×
  In this wrongful death action, the court affirmed a jury verdict of $26,000 against a developer whose land excavation and spoil mound attracted a seven-year-old child who subsequently drowned. The decision establishes that attractive nuisance liability applies to construction sit
• Union Carbide Corp. v. Goett
  256 F.2d 449· 4th Cir.· 1958-05-27 ·cited 24×
  The owner of a barge is not liable for the death of an employee of a repair company who drowned after falling into the river, as the barge was under the sole control of the repair company, and the owner owed no duty to provide rescue equipment.
• Edwards v. Donaldson
  103 So. 2d 256· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-05-23 ·cited 24×
  In this negligence case arising from a pedestrian-vehicle collision, the court affirmed the trial court's decision to refuse a jury instruction on the last clear chance doctrine. The court held that the plaintiff pedestrian failed to establish that his negligence had terminated a