Contributory Negligence

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

• Barclay v. Burlington N., Inc.
  536 F.2d 263· 8th Cir.· 1976-06-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to submit the issue of the railroad's negligence regarding warnings to the jury and that the decedent was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The admission of evidence concerning the violation of a speed limit ordinan
• Olive Fields v. Chicago
  532 F.2d 1211· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, adequately presented the defendant railroad's theory of contributory negligence and the railroad's duty to maintain the crossing, and therefore substantial justice was done.
• Batchkowsky v. Penn Cent. Co.
  525 F.2d 1121· 2d Cir.· 1975-11-14 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the indemnity agreement obligated Busch to indemnify Penn Central for the plaintiff's injuries and that the jury's award to the plaintiff was not grossly excessive.
• Wilburn M. Britt v. Corporacion Peruana de Vapores & Vox S.S. Co.
  506 F.2d 927· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the judgment, except for a remand to correct the award of past medical expenses.
• Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. United States
  504 F.2d 104· 7th Cir.· 1974-09-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding Allegheny contributorily negligent, dismissing GECC as a real party in interest, and applying collateral estoppel against Forth and Carey's estate. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Brookside.
• Thad Tate, Jr. v. Gray
  292 So. 2d 618· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-04-10 ·cited 22×
  Appellants appealed adverse jury verdicts in negligence actions arising from an automobile accident. The court upheld the trial judge's denial of appellants' motions for mistrial based on various alleged errors and held that the comparative negligence rule announced in Hoffman v.
• Peterman v. Chicago
  493 F.2d 88· 8th Cir.· 1974-03-15 ·cited 22×
  The trial court acted without jurisdiction in granting a new trial sua sponte more than 10 days after judgment, absent a timely motion for new trial.
• Jones v. Nelson
  484 F.2d 1165· 10th Cir.· 1973-08-31 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was timely filed and that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment due to genuine issues of material fact.
• Lilla Mae Ford Marshall v. Humble OIL & Ref. Co.
  459 F.2d 355· 8th Cir.· 1972-05-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court erred in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Gertrude Thompson v. Williams
  253 So. 2d 897· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-10-05 ·cited 22×
  Dorothy Williams sued defendants for damages from an automobile accident. After a jury verdict for defendants, the trial court granted Williams a new trial. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court's finding that the evidence was uncontroverted regarding the def
• Princemont Constr. Corp. v. Smith
  433 F.2d 1217· D.C. Cir.· 1970-07-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury's findings of primary negligence and lack of contributory negligence were supported by sufficient evidence and that the award, even after remittitur, was not excessive.
• Wasik v. Borg
  423 F.2d 44· 2d Cir.· 1970-03-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a third-party defendant can be held directly liable to the plaintiff when issues are tried by consent, even if not explicitly pleaded, and that Vermont law would likely extend strict product liability to innocent bystanders.
• Felice Napolitano v. Compania SUD Americana de Va-Pores
  421 F.2d 382· 2d Cir.· 1970-01-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a recess for a witness or in excluding unnamed witnesses, and that the judge's remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
• Texaco, Inc. v. Olen Lirette
  410 F.2d 1064· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that jury awards for damages were not excessive and that the denial of indemnity was not clearly erroneous, but that interest should run from the date of judicial demand, not the date of judgment.
• Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Miller
  220 So. 2d 680· Fla. 4th DCA· 1969-04-01 ·cited 22×
  The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for a directed verdict and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Vaccaro v. Alcoa S.S. Co., Inc.
  405 F.2d 1133· 2d Cir.· 1968-12-27 ·cited 22×
  The exclusion of contemporaneous accident reports was prejudicial error, requiring a new trial.
• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
  403 F.2d 291· 10th Cir.· 1968-11-01 ·cited 22×
  The court is reviewing antecedent litigation and insurance policies related to a prior incident, but the specific holding is not yet discernible from the provided text.
• Schenfeld v. Norton Co.
  391 F.2d 420· 10th Cir.· 1968-03-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court's dismissal of the implied warranty claim was improper and remanded the case for consideration of strict liability in tort under Colorado law.
• VAN Horn v. Gulf Atl. Towing Corp.
  388 F.2d 636· 4th Cir.· 1968-01-09 ·cited 22×
  A shipowner owes a duty of reasonable care to those who foreseeably come aboard to service the vessel, even if the vessel is withdrawn from navigation and control has been transferred to a repair yard, if the owner had control at the time the dangerous condition was created.
• Speed Fastners, Inc. v. Newsom
  382 F.2d 395· 10th Cir.· 1967-09-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence did not sustain a claim of express warranty, but that the employee could sue on the theory of implied warranty, and the submission of the case to the jury on implied warranty was proper.
• Spurr v. LaSALLE Constr. Co.
  385 F.2d 322· 7th Cir.· 1967-09-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that even if both parties were negligent, the differences in their negligence were insufficient to establish common law indemnity based on active vs. passive wrongdoing.
• Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Minn. Transfer Ry. Co.
  371 F.2d 129· 8th Cir.· 1967-01-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellants were properly found jointly and severally liable for contribution under Minnesota law, as their negligence was a proximate cause of the decedent's death and there was common liability.
• Grissinger v. Griffin
  186 So. 2d 58· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-04-27 ·cited 22×
  In a negligence case arising from an automobile-pedestrian accident, the trial court allowed the jury to consult an unabridged dictionary during deliberations. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that jurors may only obtain legal definitions
• N. Natural GAS Co. v. Roth Packing Co.
  323 F.2d 922· 8th Cir.· 1963-10-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the indemnity provision in the contract between Northern and Roth was valid and enforceable, exempting Northern from liability for its own negligence, and that the Iowa Workmen's Compensation Act did not bar Northern's claim for indemnity.
• Kayo OIL Co. & Max Cook v. Sammons
  321 F.2d 729· 5th Cir.· 1963-09-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in refusing a mistrial, as the record did not support the claims of error.
• Cobb v. Brew
  155 So. 2d 814· Fla. 1st DCA· 1963-07-25 ·cited 22×
  In this negligence action arising from an automobile collision, the defendant-appellant Mary D. Cobb appeals from the trial court's grant of a new trial. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial judge abused his discretion in setting aside a jury verdict that was supp
• Cashell v. Hart
  143 So. 2d 559· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-07-06 ·cited 22×
  Janice Cashell and her father Edward Cashell appealed a judgment for defendants in a maritime negligence action arising from injuries sustained by the minor plaintiff while aboard a motorboat operated by other minors. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court err
• Quinn v. I. C. Helmly Furniture Co., Inc.
  141 So. 2d 302· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-05-22 ·cited 22×
  Plaintiffs appealed a summary judgment in favor of a furniture store after the wife slipped and fell on a wet sidewalk caused by water discharge from the store's downspout. The court reversed, holding that negligence and contributory negligence issues are generally unsuitable for
• Jeskey v. Yellow CAB Co., Inc.
  136 So. 2d 376· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-01-15 ·cited 22×
  A taxi driver sued another taxi driver for damages from a rear-end collision. The jury found for the defendant, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that even though the plaintiff's sudden stop created a presumption of negligence, the defendant's explanation (that he was fol
• Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Ahearn
  118 So. 2d 21· Fla.· 1960-02-17 ·cited 22×
  Florida Power & Light Company petitioned for review of a district court decision that reversed a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in a wrongful death action caused by electrocution. The Florida Supreme Court held that the trial judge properly directed a verdict based on
• Lohr v. Tittle
  275 F.2d 662· 10th Cir.· 1960-01-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, nor in its jury instructions or its denial of a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct.
• Griffis v. DU BOW
  114 So. 2d 207· Fla. 1st DCA· 1959-08-18 ·cited 22×
• Larnel Builders, Inc. v. Martin
  110 So. 2d 649· Fla.· 1959-04-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the doctrine of attractive nuisance is incompatible with the defense of contributory negligence, and a trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on contributory negligence in such a case.
• Deryk McCAIN v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co.
  110 So. 2d 718· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-04-07 ·cited 22×
  An eight-year-old boy was injured when he walked into a closed glass door at a model home. The defendant obtained summary judgment based on the theory that the child should have observed the transparent door. The appellate court reversed, holding that negligence is a jury questio
• Cherry v. Stedman
  259 F.2d 774· 8th Cir.· 1958-09-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury could find the plaintiff not contributorily negligent and that the defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on the plaintiff's alleged negligence. The court also found that the trial court erred in
• Murray Grayson & S. Freightways, Inc. v. Williams
  256 F.2d 61· 10th Cir.· 1958-05-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a diagram intended as a fair representation of accident scene facts was admissible, and that an employee's admissions concerning an accident within the scope of employment are admissible against the employer.
• Thomason v. Miami Transit Co.
  100 So. 2d 620· Fla.· 1958-02-05 ·cited 22×
  Ethel Thomason, a passenger on a Miami Transit Company bus, was injured when folding doors allegedly slammed shut on her leg. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict for the bus company, finding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on contributory negligen
• Radtke v. Anne L. Loud
  98 So. 2d 891· Fla. 3d DCA· 1957-12-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance and by failing to instruct on the standard of care for a school patrolman.
• Ward v. Alva Rufus Baskin
  94 So. 2d 859· Fla.· 1957-05-01 ·cited 22×
  In this negligence action for injuries to a minor child, the Florida Supreme Court reversed judgment against the father sued individually, holding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the mother's contributory negligence would bar the father's recovery. The cou
• Thomas v. Conemaugh & Black Lick R.R. Co.
  234 F.2d 429· 3d Cir.· 1956-06-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to present a jury question on negligence and causation, and that the jury's verdict was supported by an evidentiary basis, thus it could not be disturbed.
• Chicago v. Hugh Breeding, Inc.
  232 F.2d 584· 10th Cir.· 1956-03-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the railroad's negligence and the truck driver's contributory negligence.
• Rainbow Enters., Inc. v. Thompson
  81 So. 2d 208· Fla.· 1955-06-15 ·cited 22×
  Rainbow Enterprises appeals a jury verdict awarding damages to patrons injured on natural rock steps at its scenic garden attraction. The court affirms, holding that the operator of a public amusement facility must maintain its premises in reasonably safe condition, and questions
• Night Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Green
  71 So. 2d 500· Fla.· 1954-03-19 ·cited 22×
  A man was injured when he fell into a valve pit in an unlit parking area at a speedway and sued the Night Racing Association for negligence. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict, holding that the plaintiff's own negligence—walking at a fast pace in pitch darkness t
• Fuller v. King
  204 F.2d 586· 6th Cir.· 1953-05-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that admitting prior unsigned state court pleadings and dismissal entries without qualification was prejudicial error, and the jury should have been instructed on the last clear chance doctrine.
• Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. KEY
  196 F.2d 64· 5th Cir.· 1952-04-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence presented factual issues of negligence and contributory negligence that were properly for the jury to decide, not a matter of law for the court.
• Jennings v. Murphy
  194 F.2d 35· 7th Cir.· 1952-01-25 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.
• Hinton v. Dixie Ohio Exp. Co.
  188 F.2d 121· 6th Cir.· 1951-04-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding a potentially admissible res gestae statement and in directing a verdict for the defendant, as jury issues regarding negligence and contributory negligence were present.
• Eckenrode v. Pa. R. Co.
  164 F.2d 996· 3d Cir.· 1947-12-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the railroad company to sustain a jury verdict for the plaintiff.
• RED TOP CAB & Baggage Co. v. Adeline M. Dorner
  159 Fla. 538· Fla.· 1947-10-31 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict for defendant Dorner in a negligence action brought by Red Top Cab and Baggage Co. as assignee of an employee's tort claim against a third party under Florida's Workmen's Compensation Act. The Court held that sufficient eviden
• Fleming v. Husted
  164 F.2d 65· 8th Cir.· 1947-10-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a directed verdict, submitting the case to the jury, or in its instructions and rulings on evidence, and that a single improper remark by counsel did not prejudice the defendant.