Contributory Negligence

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

• Mrs. Betty Galuppi v. Viele
  232 So. 2d 408· Fla. 4th DCA· 1970-02-13 ·cited 57×
  A plaintiff sued a corporation for negligence stemming from a 1963 accident but later discovered she had named the wrong defendant. The Florida appellate court reversed a dismissal based on the statute of limitations, holding that amending the complaint to name the true individua
• White v. Hughes
  139 Fla. 54· Fla.· 1939-06-27 ·cited 57×
  This case establishes that pedestrians and bathers have superior rights to use Florida ocean beaches for bathing and recreation compared to motorists, even when the beach is designated as a public highway. The Court reversed a jury verdict for the defendant and remanded for a new
• Postal Tel. & Cable Co. v. Bart Doyle
  123 Fla. 695· Fla.· 1936-04-11 ·cited 57×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a $7,000 judgment for personal injuries, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant owned the motorcycle that caused the injury and that the trial court improperly admitted evidence regarding the plaintiff's skill as a poster artis
• The Jacksonville Elec. Co. v. Adams
  50 Fla. 429· Fla.· 1905-06-01 ·cited 57×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for a four-year-old child injured by an electric streetcar, holding that parental negligence cannot be imputed to a child to bar recovery and that a streetcar company owes heightened duty of care to young children on city streets.
• Guidry v. Cont'l OIL Co.
  640 F.2d 523· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the plaintiff was not a seaman under the Jones Act due to a lack of permanent assignment to a vessel, and that the sanction imposed on his counsel was proper. The court also found no negligence on the part of the third-party defendants.
• Hanna M. Ayoub and Margaret Ayoub v. Spencer
  550 F.2d 164· 3d Cir.· 1977-02-18 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the jury instructions improperly intertwined contributory negligence and proximate cause, and that remarks by defense counsel about unadmitted evidence were prejudicial.
• United States v. English
  521 F.2d 63· 9th Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the United States, as the entity controlling the premises and instrumentality causing death, was an employer under California Labor Code sections 6400, 6304, and 6305, and thus liable for wrongful death. The court also held that failure to discount future lost
• Guiseppe Nicroli v. DEN Norske Afrika-Og Austra-Lielinie Wilhelmsens Dampskibs-Aktieselskab
  332 F.2d 651· 2d Cir.· 1964-06-01 ·cited 56×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the ship was unseaworthy due to a slippery deck, the shipowner was negligent, the longshoreman was contributorily negligent, and the stevedore breached its warranty of workmanlike service.
• Anibal Conte v. Flota Mercante del Estado
  277 F.2d 664· 2d Cir.· 1960-04-01 ·cited 56×
  The court held that while the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining jurisdiction, the calculation of damages for loss of earning power was flawed and required re-determination under Argentine law, considering specific factors like currency exchange rates and ea
• Curtis v. CIA.
  241 F.2d 30· 3d Cir.· 1957-01-21 ·cited 56×
  The court held that a wrongful death claim based on a state statute is governed by that state's law, including its contributory negligence rules, while a survival claim based on a maritime tort continues the decedent's maritime right of action, subject to maritime comparative neg
• Burcham v. J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc.
  209 F.2d 35· 4th Cir.· 1954-01-04 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the defendants on the plaintiff's claim, as the evidence presented questions of fact regarding negligence and contributory negligence that were for the jury to decide.
• Guerrini v. United States
  167 F.2d 352· 2d Cir.· 1948-03-31 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the shipowner was not liable under the seaworthiness doctrine to an employee of a subcontractor, but remanded for findings on negligence and contributory negligence under New York law.
• Minnehaha Cnty. v. Kelley
  150 F.2d 356· 8th Cir.· 1945-07-11 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the administratrix's citizenship established federal jurisdiction, the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for failure to maintain a bridge, and evidence regarding the beneficiaries' physical condition was admissible to assess pecuniary loss.
• MOE v. Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation
  727 F.2d 917· 10th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 55×
• Stapleton v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd.
  608 F.2d 571· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-17 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the jury's finding of negligence for failure to warn was not inconsistent with a finding that the motorcycle was not defectively designed, and that the remittitur ordered by the trial court was insufficient.
• Landry v. TWO R. Drilling Co.
  511 F.2d 138· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-09 ·cited 55×
• Green v. Am. Tobacco Co.
  325 F.2d 673· 5th Cir.· 1963-12-11 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the prior judgments must be reversed and the case remanded, but disagreed on rendering judgments for plaintiffs on the issue of liability.
• Strika v. Netherlands Ministry OF Traffic
  185 F.2d 555· 2d Cir.· 1950-11-29 ·cited 55×
• Zorn v. Britton
  120 Fla. 304· Fla.· 1935-06-12 ·cited 55×
  In this negligence action arising from a vehicle collision, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict for the plaintiff but reduced the judgment by remitting excess interest awarded on unliquidated personal injury damages, establishing that interest on personal injury claim
• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. McDONALD
  676 So. 2d 12· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-06-11 ·cited 54×
  In this premises liability case, Wal-Mart Stores and Merrill Crossings Associates were held liable for damages when Lawrence McDonald was shot by an unknown assailant in a shopping center parking lot. The court affirmed the jury's apportionment of negligence and held that an inte
• Ry. Express Agency, Inc. v. Haskell V. Fulmer
  227 So. 2d 870· Fla.· 1969-11-12 ·cited 54×
  Railway Express Agency challenges a District Court decision reversing a judgment in a personal injury case arising under Florida's hazardous occupations statute. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, holding that a trial court's inadvertent omission of a comparative ne
• United States Lines Co. v. Williams
  365 F.2d 332· 5th Cir.· 1966-08-18 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the jury should have been instructed that the longshoreman's conduct could be considered a breach of the stevedore's warranty of workmanlike performance, requiring a new trial on the indemnity claim.
• Kirk v. United States
  270 F.2d 110· 9th Cir.· 1959-08-25 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the decedent's contributory negligence barred recovery, and that the doctrine of last clear chance did not apply to extend liability for prior negligence that prevented effective rescue.
• Dowling v. Nicholson
  135 So. 288· Fla.· 1931-05-27 ·cited 54×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for a plaintiff injured in a car accident, holding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the defendant was responsible for the negligent driver or the truck involved. The court emphasized the need for direc
• Savannah v. Geiger
  21 Fla. 669· Fla.· 1886-01-01 ·cited 54×
  A railroad company appeals a judgment for damages to livestock killed by its train, arguing it should not be liable absent proof of negligence. The Florida Supreme Court holds that under Florida law, which permits livestock to range freely on unfenced lands, a railroad company is
• Flanigan v. Burlington N. Inc.
  632 F.2d 880· 8th Cir.· 1980-09-04 ·cited 53×
  The court held that while the failure to instruct the jury that a FELA award is not subject to income tax was an error under *Liepelt*, it was harmless error in this case because the verdict was supported by the evidence and did not show signs of being inflated by a misunderstand
• McCABE v. Walt Disney World Co.
  350 So. 2d 814· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-10-11 ·cited 53×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because material issues of fact existed regarding the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's comparative negligence.
• Edynak v. Atl. Shipping Inc. CIE.
  562 F.2d 215· 3d Cir.· 1977-08-15 ·cited 53×
  The court held that federal maritime law applied to the longshoreman's injury occurring on navigable waters and that the jury could reasonably find the vessel unseaworthy based on the improper method of unloading, even if caused by a longshoreman's negligence.
• Nat'l CAR Rental Sys., Inc. v. Holland
  269 So. 2d 407· Fla. 4th DCA· 1972-11-30 ·cited 53×
  National Car Rental System appeals a jury verdict in favor of Holland, a truck driver injured in a highway collision caused by a rented vehicle. The appellate court affirmed the judgment despite identifying several trial errors, finding them harmless because the evidence overwhel
• Wilson v. Am. Chain & Cable Co.
  364 F.2d 558· 3d Cir.· 1966-08-03 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the jury instructions on superseding cause were erroneous and that the father's claim should not have been dismissed as a matter of law for contributory negligence or lack of jurisdictional amount, remanding both for new trials.
• Grall v. Risden
  167 So. 2d 610· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-09-30 ·cited 53×
  Plaintiff Grall was injured when he tripped over a diagonal tie-rod supporting a restaurant canopy while leaving defendant Risden's restaurant. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, holding that the tie-rod was an obvious hazard that the plaintiff failed to obser
• Miller v. Shull
  48 So.2d 521· Fla.· 1950-11-07 ·cited 53×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to sustain a demurrer, ruling that a hotel guest who slipped and fell in a bathtub failed to state a cause of action for negligence. The court found the guest's failure to observe an obvious slippery condition in the tub
• The Key W. Elec. Co. v. Albury
  91 Fla. 695· Fla.· 1926-04-29 ·cited 53×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for a minor who broke her leg after tripping on iron rails placed by a street railway company. The court found the jury instructions were confusing and contradictory, failing to clearly establish that the company's alleged negligence
• Starling v. City of Gainesville
  90 Fla. 613· Fla.· 1925-11-23 ·cited 53×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a directed verdict for the City of Gainesville, finding that the plaintiffs' evidence did not support their claim that a negligently maintained ditch caused the accident. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the ditch was the proxi
• Ampat/Midwest, Inc. v. Ill. Tool Works Inc.
  896 F.2d 1035· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-16 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the manufacturer's misrepresentations and omissions regarding defective Tapcon anchors constituted fraud, and the compensatory damages awarded were reasonable, but the punitive damages award was properly vacated by the trial court.
• Koonce v. Quaker Safety Prods. & Mfg. Co.
  798 F.2d 700· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 52×
  The court held that under Texas law, a defendant seeking indemnity or contribution from a third-party joint tortfeasor is not barred by the statute of limitations, even if the plaintiff's direct claim against the third party is time-barred.
• Durflinger v. Artiles
  727 F.2d 888· 10th Cir.· 1984-01-27 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting or excluding evidence, nor in his jury instructions, and affirmed the trial court's decision.
• Edward C. McINTYRE et ux. v. Everest & Jennings, Inc.
  575 F.2d 155· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-13 ·cited 52×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict for the plaintiffs on the issue of negligence, and that the plaintiff's own knowledge of the risk made the danger open and obvious.
• Rhoads v. Ford Motor Co.
  514 F.2d 931· 3d Cir.· 1975-04-30 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court erred in submitting the issue of the plaintiff's negligence to the jury due to insufficient evidence, and therefore affirmed the judgment.
• Dennis v. Cent. Gulf S.S. Corp.
  453 F.2d 137· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-04 ·cited 52×
• Earline Whisenant v. Brewster-Bartle Offshore Co.
  446 F.2d 394· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-20 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the Ryan doctrine of indemnity applies even without privity of contract, but the indemnitee must prove actual liability and reasonableness of settlement if defense was not tendered to the indemnitor.
• Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Eustace J. Matherne
  348 F.2d 394· 5th Cir.· 1965-06-25 ·cited 52×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of negligence against the manufacturer and that the admission of evidence of prior similar failures was proper.
• Brown v. Householder
  134 So. 2d 801· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-11-10 ·cited 52×
  Mary G. Brown, administratrix of a deceased passenger in a fatal automobile collision, appealed the trial court's grant of a directed verdict for the defendant driver. The appellate court affirmed, finding the appeal record inadequate because the appellant failed to include all e
• Shearn v. Orlando Funeral Home, Inc.
  88 So. 2d 591· Fla.· 1956-06-08 ·cited 52×
  The Florida Supreme Court answered two certified questions about whether a prior wrongful death judgment bars a subsequent personal injury suit arising from the same accident. The Court held that res judicata does not bar the second action because they involve different causes of
• Wetherbee v. Elgin
  191 F.2d 302· 7th Cir.· 1951-05-23 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was arbitrary and capricious due to a failure to diminish damages for contributory negligence and that the actuary's calculations for damages were improperly admitted.
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Timmons
  160 Fla. 754· Fla.· 1948-07-30 ·cited 52×
  Roy Timmons sued Atlantic Coast Line Railroad for injuries from a truck-train collision at a grade crossing. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict for Timmons, holding that his failure to look or listen before entering the crossing constituted negligence that was th
• Thompson v. Camp
  163 F.2d 396· 6th Cir.· 1947-08-11 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the jury's finding of mutual mistake of fact invalidating the release was not clearly erroneous, and that the jury instructions on damages were prejudicial error.
• Williams v. Powers
  135 F.2d 153· 6th Cir.· 1943-04-06 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that a violation of Ohio Gen. Code § 12603 (assured clear distance ahead) constituted negligence per se without also instructing on potential excuses for non-compliance.
• Boole v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  147 Fla. 589· Fla.· 1941-06-27 ·cited 52×
  A widow sued Florida Power & Light Company for the wrongful death of her husband, who died from internal injuries sustained in a vehicle collision. The defendant claimed a release signed by the decedent nine days after the accident barred the action. The Florida Supreme Court rev
• Frazee v. Gillespie
  98 Fla. 582· Fla.· 1929-10-09 ·cited 52×
  In this automobile collision case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for negligent driving that caused serious personal injuries. The court held that while the plaintiff may have been contributorily negligent in turning without