Contributory Negligence

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

• Selfe v. Smith
  397 So. 2d 348· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-04-08 ·cited 20×
  The court upheld the trial court's exclusion of damages for a mother's emotional distress caused by her child's injury in a motor vehicle collision, and affirmed dismissal of the negligent driver's contribution claim against the parents for failing to install a child restraint de
• Green v. The Edmands Co.
  639 F.2d 286· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in submitting the assumption of risk instruction to the jury due to insufficient evidence, and reversed that portion of the judgment.
• LeBOUEF v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  623 F.2d 985· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-11 ·cited 20×
  A manufacturer can be held liable for assembling a product with a component part that creates an unreasonably dangerous condition when used in a foreseeable manner, even if the component part itself is not defective.
• United States v. Schmidt
  626 F.2d 616· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for involuntary manslaughter, as the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant acted with gross negligence.
• McPHAIL v. Municipality OF Culebra
  598 F.2d 603· 1st Cir.· 1979-05-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that appellants could not raise new theories on appeal after failing to present them to the trial court and failing to object to jury instructions that excluded those theories.
• Booker Clemons v. Mitsui O. S. K. Lines, Ltd.
  596 F.2d 746· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a jury verdict for the plaintiff, as negligence could not be attributed to the defendants under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act amendments.
• Wright v. Albuquerque Auto-Truck Stop Plaza, Inc.
  591 F.2d 585· 10th Cir.· 1979-01-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party, nor did it err in its jury instructions regarding the scope of employment.
• Jones v. Bender Welding & Mach. Works, Inc.
  581 F.2d 1331· 9th Cir.· 1978-08-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Caterpillar was negligent for failing to adequately notify its dealers about a necessary bracket assembly for an oil cooler supply line, and that admiralty jurisdiction applied, allowing recovery for lost profits.
• Hladyshewski v. Robinson
  557 F.2d 1251· 8th Cir.· 1977-07-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant because there was sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's contributory negligence.
• DeBOER Constr., Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co. & The Ins. Ctr., Inc.
  540 F.2d 486· 10th Cir.· 1976-08-18 ·cited 20×
  A principal is bound by an agent's contract to the extent of the agent's granted authority, even if the agent acts fraudulently and exceeds that authority, and a party dealing with an agent is bound by limitations in the agent's power of attorney if they have notice of it.
• Gary R. Banks v. Koehring Co. & Farm Div. and/or Fox Tractor Div. thereof
  538 F.2d 176· 8th Cir.· 1976-06-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court properly submitted negligence and strict liability claims to the jury and correctly refused to set aside the verdict.
• North Platte Sherrill v. Royal Indus., Inc.
  526 F.2d 507· 8th Cir.· 1975-11-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when considered as a whole, adequately stated Nebraska law regarding strict liability and assumption of risk, and therefore affirmed the jury verdict.
• Forrest v. Carter
  308 So. 2d 141· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-01-28 ·cited 20×
  In this wrongful death and survival action, the trial court granted summary judgment for a physician and hospital in a case involving the death of a pregnant patient and her newborn. The appellate court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding alle
• Wells v. Colo. Coll.
  478 F.2d 158· 10th Cir.· 1973-04-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary assumption of risk, nor was the verdict excessive, and affirmed the judgments.
• Graham v. Eisele
  245 So. 2d 682· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-03-16 ·cited 20×
  Appellants Graham challenged a summary judgment against them on a cross-claim for vehicle damage arising from a motor vehicle collision. The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that a request for admission asking whether defendants owed plaintiff money constituted a conc
• Elder v. Crawley Book Mach. Co.
  441 F.2d 771· 3d Cir.· 1971-03-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that assumption of risk requires a conscious appreciation and willingness to encounter a known danger, and inadvertence or momentary inattention does not satisfy this standard.
• Henderson v. United States
  429 F.2d 588· 10th Cir.· 1970-07-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the suits were timely filed against the United States and that the non-use of seat belts was not a defense but could be considered in mitigation of damages.
• Hartnett v. The Reiss S.S. Co.
  421 F.2d 1011· 2d Cir.· 1970-01-22 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that International and Grain Handling were equally liable for the plaintiff's injuries, and that the trial court correctly determined issues of negligence, warranty, and liability apportionment.
• Landry v. Sterling Apts., Inc.
  231 So. 2d 225· Fla. 4th DCA· 1969-12-31 ·cited 20×
  The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have lawfully returned its verdict.
• Rucker v. Wabash R.R. Co.
  418 F.2d 146· 7th Cir.· 1969-11-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that freight cars can be considered "unnecessary obstructions" under Illinois Commerce Commission Rule 205, and that the trial court erred in striking counts alleging violations of this rule. The court also held that the jury, not the judge, should determine if a v
• Canova v. The Travelers Ins. Co.
  406 F.2d 410· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that General Maritime law, not Louisiana law, applied to the issue of prejudgment interest in a diversity action arising from a maritime tort.
• Dumas v. MacLEAN
  404 F.2d 1062· 1st Cir.· 1968-12-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motions for directed verdict, judgment n.o.v., and new trial, and properly instructed the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance.
• DuBOSE v. Matson Navigation Co.
  403 F.2d 875· 9th Cir.· 1968-11-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a seaman's failure to report a condition causing injury, even if minor, can constitute contributory negligence under maritime law, mitigating damages rather than barring recovery.
• Louis v. Lyle et ux.
  402 F.2d 323· 5th Cir.· 1968-10-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that even if a jury instruction was erroneous, the judgment should be affirmed if the defendants were entitled to a directed verdict based on the evidence.
• Harvey v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  388 F.2d 123· 5th Cir.· 1968-01-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's assumption of risk, precluding summary judgment.
• Grunenthal v. The Long Island Rail Rd. Co.
  388 F.2d 480· 2d Cir.· 1968-01-11 ·cited 20×
  The court should not order remittitur unless there is an abuse of discretion and the verdict is so high as to be a denial of justice.
• Alexander v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
  382 F.2d 963· 2d Cir.· 1967-08-01 ·cited 20×
  A ship can be rendered unseaworthy solely by the negligence of a longshoreman during a loading operation, following Supreme Court precedent.
• Schemel v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  384 F.2d 802· 7th Cir.· 1967-07-17 ·cited 20×
  The district court erred in dismissing the complaint because the plaintiff may be able to prove facts entitling them to relief. The court should not have applied the "intended purpose" rule to determine the extent of the manufacturer's duty in a negligence case, especially when t
• Associated Eng'rs, Inc. v. JOB
  370 F.2d 633· 8th Cir.· 1966-12-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff's contributory negligence was not more than slight as a matter of law, and that the jury's findings on assumption of risk and comparative negligence were sufficient to support the judgment.
• Kissell v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  367 F.2d 375· 1st Cir.· 1966-10-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in accepting the jury's verdict without responses to all interrogatories and that the interrogatory on contributory negligence was properly phrased. Furthermore, a juror's prior cross-examination by the plaintiff's husband did not w
• Titan Steel Corp. v. Walton
  365 F.2d 542· 10th Cir.· 1966-08-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that Rust breached its duty to the decedent by creating a dangerous condition and failing to warn, and that the indemnity provisions were enforceable under Utah law.
• Wilkinson v. Grover
  181 So. 2d 591· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-12-28 ·cited 20×
  In this automobile collision negligence case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a jury verdict for defendant Grover, rejecting plaintiff Wilkinson's arguments that a hospital record and physician's testimony regarding plaintiff's statements about the accident were ina
• Heddendorf v. Joyce
  178 So. 2d 126· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-05-12 ·cited 20×
  Heddendorf appeals a $25,000 jury verdict in favor of Joyce arising from an automobile accident. The court addresses whether the car owner qualifies as a guest under Florida's guest statute and whether plaintiff improperly introduced a per diem damages calculation chart for the f
• Dilley v. The Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.
  327 F.2d 249· 6th Cir.· 1964-01-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of an intra-company accident report, containing the foreman's opinion on the cause of the accident, was prejudicial error.
• Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. W. Fire & Indem. Co.
  318 F.2d 379· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that National's automobile liability policy provided primary coverage for the hired truck, and Western's general liability policy provided excess coverage, and that the payment made was not voluntary. The court also held that Western's subrogation claim was not val
• Cas L. Cordle v. Allied Chem. Corp.
  309 F.2d 821· 6th Cir.· 1962-11-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence of the defendant's negligence to go to the jury and that the trial court properly admitted the challenged testimony and instructions.
• Hart Props., Inc. v. Slack
  145 So. 2d 285· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-10-09 ·cited 20×
  A minor was injured at a motel pool when he fell into an uncovered hole leading to a pump room. The defendant motel owner appealed a jury verdict finding it negligent, arguing the plaintiff was a licensee (to whom the motel owed minimal duty) rather than an invitee (to whom it ow
• Savarese v. Hill
  128 So. 2d 775· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-04-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in granting a directed verdict, as questions of contributory negligence and proximate cause were for the jury.
• S. Ry. Co. v. Miller
  285 F.2d 202· 6th Cir.· 1960-12-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the 1959 amendment to the Tennessee Railroad Precautions Act did not apply retroactively to accidents that occurred before its effective date, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on other grounds raised by the appellant.
• Carabellese v. Naviera Aznar, S.A.
  285 F.2d 355· 2d Cir.· 1960-11-25 ·cited 20×
• Halecki v. United NEW York & NEW Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Ass'n
  282 F.2d 137· 2d Cir.· 1960-07-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court's jury charge overemphasized the shipowner's control and failed to adequately instruct the jury on the owner's duty to exercise reasonable care regarding the method and manner of using a dangerous substance, thus requiring reversal.
• Marion A. James and Donald v. James
  121 So. 2d 186· Fla. 3d DCA· 1960-06-09 ·cited 20×
  Marion James sought recovery for injuries sustained when struck by Eunia Keene's automobile while crossing Biscayne Boulevard. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's refusal to give a last clear chance jury instruction, holding that neither party had a clear opportunity t
• Cohen v. W. Hotels, Inc.
  276 F.2d 26· 9th Cir.· 1960-02-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered expert testimony, as the jury could determine the rug's condition and cause of fall using common knowledge.
• Hamblin v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co.
  271 F.2d 562· 10th Cir.· 1959-10-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant utility did not violate the applicable regulation by maintaining a guy wire at 16 feet, 8 inches over a public street, thus plaintiff failed to establish negligence.
• Fruit Indus., Inc. v. Petty
  268 F.2d 391· 5th Cir.· 1959-06-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts finding the defendant negligent and the plaintiffs' decedent not contributorily negligent, and that the verdicts were not legally excessive.
• Kuhn v. Telford
  115 So. 2d 36· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-03-13 ·cited 20×
  A negligence action arising from a 1955 automobile collision resulted in a judgment against truck drivers after their second trial. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on liability because ev
• Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Helwig
  108 So. 2d 620· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-01-16 ·cited 20×
  In this negligence case arising from an explosion at a gasoline loading depot, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for new trial after a jury verdict for the defendant. The appellate court reversed, holding that the jury verdict was supported by substantial evidence an
• Goldie B. Prashker v. Beech Aircraft Corp. & Atl. Aviation Corp.
  258 F.2d 602· 3d Cir.· 1958-07-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court properly directed a verdict for the defendants because the pilot's contributory negligence barred recovery, and alternatively, no negligence or breach of warranty by the defendants was proven.
• Vestues Cutchins v. Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co.
  101 So. 2d 857· Fla.· 1958-03-05 ·cited 20×
  A railroad company was held liable for injuries caused by a train-automobile collision at a grade crossing, even though the jury exonerated the railroad's engineer. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's post-verdict directed verdict in favor of the railroad, holdin
• The NEW York Cent. R.R. Co. v. Alberta L. Delich
  252 F.2d 522· 6th Cir.· 1958-02-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that under Ohio law, a motorist's failure to effectively look for an approaching train at a railroad crossing, when there was an unobstructed view, constitutes contributory negligence as a matter of law, even if warning devices failed.