Contributory Negligence

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

• Md. Cas. Co. v. Major Kador
  225 F.2d 120· 5th Cir.· 1955-08-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the insured tort-feasor is an 'adverse party' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(b), allowing the plaintiff to call him for cross-examination.
• Boat Dagny, Inc. v. Todd
  224 F.2d 208· 1st Cir.· 1955-06-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the master's failure to ensure the restoration of deck lights due to a generator issue was contributory fault, not a complete bar to recovery under the Jones Act, and that the jury was not obligated to accept the defendant's view of the facts regarding the cau
• Tooley v. Rhoda Margulies
  79 So. 2d 421· Fla.· 1955-04-06 ·cited 24×
  This case arose from an automobile collision at an intersection in Miami Beach involving guest passengers suing the other driver. The appellants challenged jury verdicts finding them not liable while finding the other driver negligent, and the court affirmed those verdicts based
• Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. O'Neill
  211 F.2d 190· 6th Cir.· 1954-03-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was properly submitted to the jury, creating an inference of negligence.
• Povia v. Melvin
  66 So. 2d 494· Fla.· 1953-07-24 ·cited 24×
  In this personal injury appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff who lost his arm in a highway collision between a truck and his car. The court held that the jury's factual findings regarding which vehicle crossed the center line an
• Rubey v. William Morris, Inc.
  66 So. 2d 218· Fla.· 1953-07-17 ·cited 24×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a summary judgment dismissing a guest's negligence complaint against a hotel for injuries sustained by tripping over a rolled-up bath mat in a dark bathroom. The court held that a hotel guest may reasonably expect a rented room to be free from d
• Thiringer v. Barlow
  205 F.2d 476· 10th Cir.· 1953-06-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence supported the jury's verdict and the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a directed verdict or the motion for a new trial.
• Davis Frozen Foods, Inc. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.
  204 F.2d 839· 4th Cir.· 1953-05-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court properly directed a verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of the defendant's negligence, and that the jury was entitled to consider the issue of contributory negligence regarding warning signs.
• Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Pidd
  197 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1952-06-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the plaintiff was supported by evidence, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or denying a motion to set aside the verdict.
• Interstate Motor Lines, Inc. v. Great W. Ry. Co.
  161 F.2d 968· 10th Cir.· 1947-05-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to submit to the jury the question of whether the railroad company was negligent in failing to install special warning signals at a dangerous crossing.
• Lucy v. Saucer
  155 Fla. 659· Fla.· 1945-03-06 ·cited 24×
  Lucy Saucer sued the City of West Palm Beach for negligence after she fell into a depression in the sidewalk. A jury found for the defendant, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly instructed the jury and that the verdict was supported by su
• Ala. Great S. R. Co. v. Johnson
  140 F.2d 968· 5th Cir.· 1944-02-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by giving a speculative damages instruction regarding future contributions, despite the defendants' timely objection.
• Carlyle E. Peavey v. City of Miami
  146 Fla. 629· Fla.· 1941-04-15 ·cited 24×
  Two companion cases where pilot Peavey and his corporation Magic City Airways sued Miami for negligence after Peavey collided with a road-roller while landing at the municipal airport under reconstruction. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the city, establishing tha
• Brinegar v. Green et ux.
  117 F.2d 316· 8th Cir.· 1941-02-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants, as there were genuine issues of material fact for the jury regarding negligence.
• Pendarvis v. Pfeifer
  132 Fla. 724· Fla.· 1938-06-10 ·cited 24×
  A school bus driver permitted an eight-year-old child to alight from the bus on the opposite side of the highway from his home while a car was approaching, resulting in the child being struck. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for $7,000 against the bus driver, ho
• Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Watson
  103 Fla. 477· Fla.· 1931-11-12 ·cited 24×
  In this negligence case involving a train-wagon collision at a railroad crossing, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for the plaintiff but reduced damages due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence. The court held that while railroads must provide adequate warn
• Fla. Motor Lines, Inc. v. Casad
  98 Fla. 720· Fla.· 1929-10-18 ·cited 24×
  A motor bus operated by Florida Motor Lines collided with a parked car and then struck the plaintiff's vehicle after swerving to avoid a Ford roadster that suddenly backed into its path. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that the jury co
• Wade v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co.
  54 Fla. 277· Fla.· 1907-06-01 ·cited 24×
  Amanda Wade sued the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company for the death of her husband, who was killed when an engine running backward collided with a hand car he was operating on the railroad's track. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a directed verdict for the defendant, ho
• Barkett v. Gomez
  908 So. 2d 1084· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-06-15 ·cited 23×
  The trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the statute prohibiting pedestrians from walking on a roadway when a sidewalk is available, as there was evidence supporting the instruction. The exclusion of a photograph and the plaintiff's comment on an uncalled witness
• Am. Aerial Lift, Inc. v. Perez
  629 So. 2d 169· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-10-05 ·cited 23×
  American Aerial Lift, a commercial lessor of equipment, appeals a jury verdict finding it strictly liable for injuries caused by a defectively designed scissors-lift. The court affirms strict liability for commercial lessors of defective products but reverses for a new trial on l
• Masinter v. Tenneco OIL Co.
  867 F.2d 892· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-16 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), as applied through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), provided the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff's injuries, and that the vessel owner's duty of care under LHWCA § 5(b) was not negate
• O'Gilvie v. Int'l Playtex, Inc.
  821 F.2d 1438· 10th Cir.· 1987-06-18 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the trial court erred in reducing the punitive damages award based on post-trial events and that the plaintiff did not waive his right to appeal the remittitur. The court also affirmed the jury's liability verdict and rejected Playtex's arguments regarding com
• Spaulding v. City OF Melbourne
  473 So. 2d 226· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-06-27 ·cited 23×
  The court held that triable issues of fact existed regarding the defendants' negligence and assumption of risk, and thus summary judgment was inappropriate.
• Comeaux v. T.L. James & Co., Inc.
  702 F.2d 1023· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-01 ·cited 23×
  The court held that while the Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims have different standards of proof and causation, proper jury instructions and interrogatories can manage their joinder, but a remand is necessary for unseaworthiness liability determination.
• Westerman v. Sears
  577 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-01 ·cited 23×
  The court held that while Texas law applied to the strict liability claim and Florida law to the breach of warranty claim, damages could be awarded under both, but not duplicated. A plaintiff cannot appeal a remittitur order they have accepted.
• Knippen v. Ford Motor Co.
  546 F.2d 993· D.C. Cir.· 1976-11-08 ·cited 23×
  A manufacturer owes a duty of ordinary care in designing its vehicles to avoid unreasonably dangerous features that could enhance injuries in a collision, even if the collision is not caused by the vehicle's design.
• LeBLANC v. Two-R Drilling Co.
  527 F.2d 1316· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-03 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in determining liability and reversed and remanded for findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the correct legal standards for indemnity under the warranty of workmanlike performance (WWLP).
• Graff v. McNEIL
  322 So. 2d 40· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-10-27 ·cited 23×
  This case addresses whether Florida's No-Fault Insurance Act altered the established law governing summary judgments. The court held that the Act does not change fundamental summary judgment principles, requiring that allegations in complaints be accepted as true and that summary
• Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co.
  469 F.2d 897· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-21 ·cited 23×
  The court held that plaintiffs could not unilaterally withdraw their jury trial demands by amending their complaints to invoke admiralty jurisdiction under Rule 9(h) without complying with Rule 39(a)'s consent requirements.
• Ward v. Union Barge Line Corp.
  443 F.2d 565· 3d Cir.· 1971-05-10 ·cited 23×
  The court affirmed the denial of personal injury and wrongful death claims due to statutes of limitations and laches, but affirmed the award of maintenance and cure to the seaman's estate.
• Neill v. Diamond M. Drilling Co.
  426 F.2d 487· 5th Cir.· 1970-03-31 ·cited 23×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the drilling rig was a vessel and the plaintiff was a seaman, and that the findings of negligence and damages were not clearly erroneous.
• Lowery v. Clouse
  348 F.2d 252· 8th Cir.· 1965-07-16 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to submit the Minnesota reduced speed statute, in its amber light instruction, or in its submission of the case via special verdict.
• The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Mrs. Ada Z. Brown
  338 F.2d 229· 5th Cir.· 1964-10-16 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the amended complaint related back to the original filing date for prescription purposes and that the "cross-employee" exclusion in the insurance policy did not apply to the plaintiffs, allowing their claims to proceed.
• Rianhard v. Rice
  119 So. 2d 730· Fla. 1st DCA· 1960-04-05 ·cited 23×
  Plaintiff motorcycle rider appealed a summary judgment dismissing his negligence action against a truck driver following a rear-end collision. The court reversed, holding that conflicting evidence about whether the collision occurred in the plaintiff's lane or the defendant's pas
• Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling
  104 So. 2d 120· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-06-24 ·cited 23×
  The appellate court affirmed a jury verdict and judgment for a hotel guest who sued for injuries sustained from tripping in the hotel lobby. The court found no prejudicial error in the trial proceedings that would warrant reversal.
• Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Buckles
  85 Fla. 416· Fla.· 1923-04-17 ·cited 23×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a case where a plaintiff was injured in a train-vehicle collision. The court addressed issues of evidence presentation, the sufficiency of evidence to support the verdict, and the proper apportionment of damages due to the plaintiff's contributo
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Padgett
  71 Fla. 90· Fla.· 1916-01-31 ·cited 23×
  The court reversed a jury verdict awarding damages to a plaintiff injured by a train, finding the plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. This case highlights the principle that a plaintiff's awareness of danger, even if the defendant was also neg
• Balbino Jimenez Garay v. Carnival Cruise Line, Inc.
  904 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a seaman's intoxication does not constitute willful misconduct barring maintenance and cure if the shipowner condones or permits drinking and drunkenness aboard the vessel.
• Garcia v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.
  818 F.2d 713· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Electromatic Tamper is not a locomotive under the Boiler Inspection Act, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend the judgment to include prejudgment interest after a notice of appeal was filed.
• Nowell v. Universal Elec. Co.
  792 F.2d 1310· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that conflicting jury instructions on negligence and damages constituted plain error, requiring a new trial despite the lack of a specific objection to the erroneous portion.
• Rhodes v. Interstate Battery Sys. OF Am., Inc.
  722 F.2d 1517· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a plaintiff's failure to read an adequate warning on a product constitutes contributory negligence, barring recovery under Georgia law.
• Brewer v. Jeep Corp.
  724 F.2d 653· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the failure to instruct the jury on breach of warranty was harmless error, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit a film without its accompanying report.
• Fenner v. Dependable Trucking Co., Inc.
  716 F.2d 598· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 22×
  The court's original disposition held that the trial court's order was voidable on appeal, and there was sufficient evidence of negligence to go to the jury.
• Paulino Izaguirre Rojas v. Richardson
  703 F.2d 186· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that defense counsel's reference to the plaintiff as an "illegal alien" during closing arguments constituted plain error, prejudicing the jury and affecting substantial rights, thus warranting a new trial.
• Martin v. Timothy S. Weaver & the City of Gallipolis
  666 F.2d 1013· 6th Cir.· 1981-12-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred by incompletely instructing the jury on Ohio governmental immunity law and by failing to charge the jury that the defendants had the burden of proving the immunity defense, and also erred in excluding rebuttal testimony.
• LeSUEUR Creamery, Inc. v. Haskon, Inc.
  660 F.2d 342· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a jury's negligence verdict can be sustained even with other claims, and that damages must be reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of contributory negligence as required by statute.
• Barber v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  648 F.2d 1272· 10th Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine factual disputes existed regarding whether the transformer was defective when it left the manufacturer's control, including the issue of failure to warn.
• Mitchell v. Fruehauf Corp. & Fruehauf Corp.
  568 F.2d 1139· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the trailer was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, and that this defect was a producing cause of the accident.
• Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique
  558 F.2d 186· 4th Cir.· 1977-05-06 ·cited 22×
  A vessel owner's liability to an injured longshoreman for negligence under the Longshoremen's Act should be limited to the extent of the vessel's own fault, plus any valid stevedore lien, to avoid disrupting the statutory balance of rights and liabilities.
• Kennedy v. U. S. Constr. Co. & W. E. Sanders Constr. Co.
  545 F.2d 81· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendants did not breach any duty owed to the plaintiff, and therefore, the district court did not err in directing a verdict in their favor.