Contributory Negligence

4,345 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Sproule v. Nelson
  81 So. 2d 478· Fla.· 1955-06-15 ·cited 65×
  The court affirmed a jury verdict awarding $60,000 to an airplane mechanic injured while directing the fueling of an airplane. The mechanic was crushed between a gasoline truck and the airplane due to the truck driver's negligence. The court rejected the appellants' arguments tha
• Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Tampa Elec. Co.
  60 So.2d 179· Fla.· 1952-08-05 ·cited 65×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict for the defendant, finding that the jury should have decided whether the electric company was negligent in maintaining uninsulated wires near fruit trees and whether the deceased worker's actions contributed to his death. The
• Tamiami GUN Shop v. Klein
  116 So. 2d 421· Fla.· 1959-12-16 ·cited 64×
  Tamiami Gun Shop sold a rifle to a minor who falsely claimed to be over eighteen, violating Florida's firearms statute and Miami's ordinance. The Florida Supreme Court held that violations of statutes protecting minors from their inability to exercise self-protective care constit
• Marshall v. Nugent
  222 F.2d 604· 1st Cir.· 1955-05-13 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for Socony, as issues of contributory negligence, proximate cause, and scope of employment were properly submitted to the jury.
• Dixon v. United States
  219 F.2d 10· 2d Cir.· 1955-02-07 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the issue of whether the shipowner was negligent in repairing the ladder was not adequately determined by the lower court, requiring remand. It also affirmed that assumption of risk is not a defense for seamen and questioned whether contributory negligence app
• Mostyn v. Delaware
  160 F.2d 15· 2d Cir.· 1947-05-09 ·cited 64×
  An employee injured while sleeping near the tracks, after being displaced from unfit housing provided by the employer, is considered within the scope of employment under the FELA. Furthermore, an indemnity contract does not cover the indemnitee's active negligence unless explicit
• Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co. v. Lee
  90 Fla. 632· Fla.· 1924-12-04 ·cited 64×
  A widow of a worker killed when a defectively constructed derrick collapsed sued his employer for negligence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict in the widow's favor, holding that an employee is not charged with assuming risks from defective appliances provided by
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Holliday
  73 Fla. 269· Fla.· 1917-02-07 ·cited 64×
  In this negligence action, Sherman Holliday recovered a $3,000 jury verdict against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company for injuries sustained while employed to maintain railroad yard lights. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the company's neglige
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mallory Johnson Allen
  67 Fla. 257· Fla.· 1914-03-27 ·cited 64×
  A railroad employee injured when struck by an electric trolley wire sued the railroad for negligence, claiming the railroad allowed the electric company to hang the wire dangerously low. The railroad sought to use the employee's prior settlement with the electric company as a com
• Geo. E. Wood Lumber Co. v. Addie P. Gipson by Her Next Friend
  63 Fla. 316· Fla.· 1912-01-01 ·cited 64×
  In this negligence case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $5,000 judgment for a widow whose husband was killed when logs rolled down poorly maintained ramps at the defendant lumber company's sawmill. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict and tha
• The Consumers Elec. Light & St. R.R. Co. v. Pryor
  44 Fla. 354· Fla.· 1902-01-01 ·cited 64×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for Mary E. Pryor against The Consumers Electric Light and Street Railroad Company in a personal injury action involving a streetcar collision. The case establishes important principles regarding the pleading of negligence in street r
• Sanford Bros. Boats, Inc. v. Dalvis Vidrine
  412 F.2d 958· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-15 ·cited 63×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict for the seaman on claims of negligence and unseaworthiness, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings.
• DELTA Eng'g Corp. & the Travelers Ins. Co. v. Scott
  322 F.2d 11· 5th Cir.· 1963-08-15 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding Placid liable to the plaintiff and in finding the rope defective and Columbian liable, but affirmed the judgment against Delta and the remittitur.
• Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Turbine Serv., Inc.
  674 F.2d 401· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-29 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding Todd Shipyards guilty of gross negligence, thus the limitation of liability clause was effective. The court affirmed liability for the river casualty but modified the damages awarded.
• Mrs. Mae Frances Neal v. Saga Shipping Co.
  407 F.2d 481· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-23 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the trial court's findings on contributory negligence and damages were not clearly erroneous, and affirmed the judgment.
• Bellere v. Einar Madsen
  114 So. 2d 619· Fla.· 1959-09-16 ·cited 62×
  A defendant is not entitled to a sudden emergency instruction if their own negligence created or contributed to the emergency.
• Pogue v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co.
  242 F.2d 575· 5th Cir.· 1957-04-02 ·cited 62×
  A storekeeper can be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition created by the store's own method of operation, even without specific notice of the hazard.
• Delany v. Breeding's Homestead Drug Co.
  93 So. 2d 116· Fla.· 1957-02-26 ·cited 62×
  Virginia Delany appealed a summary judgment dismissing her negligence action after she tripped over a bumper log in an unfamiliar parking lot at night. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that whether Delany had a right to expect the parking lot to be free of such obstacl
• Smith v. Welch
  189 F.2d 832· 10th Cir.· 1951-05-22 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions, its handling of evidence, or its refusal to grant a new trial.
• Kuehner v. Green
  436 So. 2d 78· Fla.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 61×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether express assumption of risk absolutely bars recovery in contact sport negligence cases. The court held that express assumption of risk remains a viable defense in contact sports, but only when a participant subjectively appreciates and v
• Daigle v. Point Landing, Inc.
  616 F.2d 825· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-08 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the towboat master was not negligent for failing to warn the plaintiff because the master had no reason to suspect that maneuvering the vessel would endanger the plaintiff.
• Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Williams
  264 So. 2d 862· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-07-25 ·cited 61×
  A store owner can be held liable for injuries from a floor condition if the condition existed long enough to charge the owner with constructive knowledge, even if the origin of the condition is unknown.
• Pac. TOW Boat Co. v. States Marine Corp. of Del.
  276 F.2d 745· 9th Cir.· 1960-02-09 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the failure to display required navigation lights on a barge, coupled with the presumption of fault for a moving vessel striking a stationary one, was sufficient to establish the tug's negligence, and that the trial court's findings of no negligence by the ste
• Powell v. Gary
  146 Fla. 334· Fla.· 1941-03-07 ·cited 61×
  A railroad company appeals a judgment for damages resulting from a collision between its train and a truck at a railroad crossing. The Florida Supreme Court reverses, holding that the truck driver's failure to look for an approaching train constituted sole proximate cause of the
• Mrs. Eunice E. Orr v. Avon Fla. Citrus Corp.
  130 Fla. 306· Fla.· 1937-11-27 ·cited 61×
  A widow sued a citrus corporation for wrongful death after her husband was killed in a multi-vehicle collision allegedly caused by negligence of the corporation's agent. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict, holding that the question of negligence and the agent's
• Sears v. McKENZIE
  502 So. 2d 940· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-01-20 ·cited 60×
  In this products liability case, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a jury verdict awarding damages to Alexander McKenzie for injuries sustained when a ladder manufactured by Keller and sold by Sears broke beneath him. The court upheld the trial court's rejection
• DeWITT v. The W. Pac. R.R. Co.
  719 F.2d 1448· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-09 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and indemnity judgment, finding the appeal frivolous and awarding attorney's fees and costs to the appellees.
• Warnie Lee IVY v. Sec. Barge Lines, Inc.
  606 F.2d 524· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-13 ·cited 60×
  The dissent argues that the majority's interpretation of Higginbotham incorrectly limits recovery for loss of society under the Jones Act for deaths in territorial waters.
• Bowen v. United States
  570 F.2d 1311· 7th Cir.· 1978-02-09 ·cited 60×
  Under Indiana law, a final administrative determination that a pilot violated aviation regulations by flying into known icing conditions can collaterally estop the pilot from relitigating that issue in a Federal Tort Claims Act suit, and such a violation constitutes contributory
• Gauck v. Meleski
  346 F.2d 433· 5th Cir.· 1965-06-03 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding proximate cause and the nature of the alleged contributory negligence.
• Chicago Great W. Ry. Co. v. Casura
  234 F.2d 441· 8th Cir.· 1956-06-07 ·cited 60×
  The court held that while the judgment against both defendants is affirmed, the railway company is entitled to indemnity from Swift & Company because Swift's negligence was the primary cause of the injury.
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Whitney
  65 Fla. 72· Fla.· 1913-02-04 ·cited 60×
  Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company appeals a $20,000 judgment for Whitney, an employee injured while coupling trains due to the railroad's failure to equip its engine with an automatic coupler as required by federal law. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the judgment, rejecting
• Jacksonville Elec. Co. v. Sloan
  52 Fla. 257· Fla.· 1906-06-01 ·cited 60×
  Jacksonville Electric Company appeals a $14,000 wrongful death verdict for an employee (Sloan) electrocuted while working on a broken power line. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the company had a duty to ensure workers' safety and that evidence supported the jury
• Parrish v. Pensacola & Atl. R.R. Co.
  28 Fla. 251· Fla.· 1891-06-01 ·cited 60×
  Thomas Parrish, a day laborer for a railroad company, lost his arm when a locomotive backed into a gravel train with excessive force. He sued the railroad for negligence in employing an incompetent fireman, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict for the defendant
• Doca v. Marina Mercante Nicara-Guense, S.A.
  634 F.2d 30· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-01 ·cited 59×
  The court held that inflation should be considered when calculating awards for lost future wages, and suggested a 2% discount rate as a fair starting point. It also affirmed liability findings but remanded for redetermination of damages.
• Simmons v. King
  478 F.2d 857· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-12 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its peremptory instructions regarding contributory negligence and in submitting the issue of vicarious liability to the jury, necessitating a new trial.
• Petition of Canal Barge Co., Inc. v. Griffith
  480 F.2d 11· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-30 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the pilot, despite not having actual knowledge of a specific high-water current hazard, was contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to inform himself of conditions an experienced pilot would know, thus reducing damages.
• Rosaria Dina v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
  90 Fla. 558· Fla.· 1925-11-16 ·cited 59×
  Rosaria Dina appealed a jury verdict for the defendant Seaboard Air Line Railway Company in a wrongful death action arising from her husband's death at a railway crossing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the verdict, holding that the deceased's reckless attempt to cross ahead
• Bd. OF Water Works Trs. OF the City OF DES Moines v. Alvord
  706 F.2d 820· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-05 ·cited 58×
  The erroneous jury instruction, when considered with all other instructions, did not prejudice the plaintiff.
• Pan-Alaska Fisheries, Inc. v. Marine Constr. & Design Co.
  565 F.2d 1129· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-13 ·cited 58×
  Strict products liability is applicable in admiralty, and comparative fault principles can be applied to reduce damages in such claims.
• Robbins v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass'n
  552 F.2d 788· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-17 ·cited 58×
  The court held that a subsequent remedial measure, such as a revised warning, is admissible as substantive evidence in a strict liability claim for a defective product, even if inadmissible in a negligence claim. The court also affirmed the jury's award of damages for cattle loss
• O'Neill v. United States
  411 F.2d 139· 3d Cir.· 1969-05-12 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial court's findings regarding the plaintiff's contributory negligence lacked the necessary specificity under Rule 52(a) for appellate review, requiring a remand.
• Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.
  350 F.2d 479· 3d Cir.· 1965-07-26 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the jury instructions were inadequate regarding the requirements of Section 12 of the Sales Act, specifically concerning express warranties and the necessity of buyer reliance.
• Isenberg v. Ortona Park Recreational Ctr., Inc.
  160 So. 2d 132· Fla. 1st DCA· 1964-01-23 ·cited 58×
  A 16-year-old girl was injured when she ran into a closed sliding glass door at a recreational facility, striking it with such force that it shattered. The jury found both parties negligent, but judgment was entered for the defendant. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded fo
• Consol. GAS & Equip. Co. of Am. v. Carver
  257 F.2d 111· 10th Cir.· 1958-06-30 ·cited 58×
  The court held that a juror's failure to disclose a pending, similar personal injury lawsuit during voir dire warranted relief from the judgment, requiring a new trial between the plaintiff and one defendant. The court affirmed other aspects of the judgment.
• Herring v. Wilber T. Eiland
  81 So. 2d 645· Fla.· 1955-05-20 ·cited 58×
  In this wrongful death and personal injury case arising from a car accident, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant driver, holding that the defendant's deposition testimony regarding his driving conduct was admissible despite the plaintiff's claim
• Epps v. Ry. Express Agency
  40 So. 2d 131· Fla.· 1949-02-08 ·cited 58×
  This case clarifies that a prior judgment against a widow's wrongful death claim can estop a subsequent survival action by the estate's administrator if both claims stem from the same negligent act and benefit the same parties. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, empha
• Dempsey-Vanderbilt Hotel, Inc. v. Coanraad Huisman
  153 Fla. 800· Fla.· 1943-11-23 ·cited 58×
  A guest at the Dempsey-Vanderbilt Hotel sued for injuries sustained when he fell on a defective hotel stairway. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for the guest, holding that an invitee has the right to assume a maintained stairway is reasonably safe and need not c
• G. Ferlita & Sons, Inc. v. Beck
  143 Fla. 509· Fla.· 1940-06-21 ·cited 58×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for plaintiff Beck in a tort action arising from an automobile collision. Beck was injured when he swerved left to avoid a parked truck and collided with an oncoming vehicle, and the court held that Beck's contributory negligence—fail
• Lewis and Carolyn Pate v. Seaboard R.R., Inc.
  819 F.2d 1074· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-23 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a new trial based on erroneous jury instructions regarding passenger duties and the interpretation of a party's self-contradictory testimony.