Contributory Negligence

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

• Woodcock v. Wilcox
  98 Fla. 14· Fla.· 1929-06-13 ·cited 52×
  A construction worker employed by an independent plumbing contractor was injured by a timber allegedly negligently loosened by the defendant builder's servants. The court reversed judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the declaration failed to allege essential facts showing th
• Fiacco v. City OF Rensselaer
  783 F.2d 319· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-11 ·cited 51×
  A municipality can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a policy of deliberate indifference to its officers' use of excessive force, and evidence of unadjudicated third-party claims is admissible to prove such a policy.
• Joyce v. Atl. Richfield Co.
  651 F.2d 676· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-26 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to provide separate jury instructions and findings for the claim of failure to provide swift and adequate medical care, necessitating a retrial on all Jones Act claims, but affirmed the liability determination under the unseawo
• Cities Serv. OIL Co. v. Mrs. Angela Richard Launey
  403 F.2d 537· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-05 ·cited 51×
  The court held that funeral expenses are not recoverable under the Jones Act, as they are chargeable to the decedent's estate, not the beneficiary.
• Fain v. Cartwright
  132 Fla. 855· Fla.· 1938-06-17 ·cited 51×
  In this negligence case arising from an automobile collision, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for damages against the defendant for injuries and economic losses suffered by the plaintiff. The court upheld the trial court's evidentiary and procedural rulings, inc
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Weir
  63 Fla. 69· Fla.· 1912-01-01 ·cited 51×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment awarding $1,000 damages to an automobile owner whose vehicle was struck by a negligently operated train at a railroad crossing. The court held that while the railroad was negligent in failing to sound warning signals, the automobile o
• Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp.
  693 So. 2d 934· Fla.· 1996-05-30 ·cited 50×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that when a defendant raises evidence of a plaintiff's failure to wear a seat belt under Florida's safety belt law, the trial court must instruct the jury that violation of the statute constitutes evidence of negligence, and that the seat belt defen
• Cook v. Hoppin
  783 F.2d 684· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-07 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the erroneous admission of certain hospital record statements was prejudicial and warranted a new trial, and that the district court erred in giving a 'mere accident' jury instruction.
• Martell v. Boardwalk Enters., Inc.
  748 F.2d 740· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-13 ·cited 50×
  The court held that while the jury's findings on liability were supported, the damages awarded were excessive and required a new trial or remittitur.
• Eugene v. Thezan
  708 F.2d 175· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-27 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no merit to the appellant's contentions regarding unseaworthiness, contributory negligence, jury instructions, or damages.
• Zambito v. Southland Rec. Enters., Inc.
  383 So. 2d 989· Fla. 2d DCA· 1980-05-28 ·cited 50×
  The Zambitos appealed a dismissal of their negligence complaint arising from a fall at a roller skating facility, claiming the trial court improperly applied a patent danger defense based on the plaintiff's knowledge of hazards. The Second District reversed, holding that comparat
• Hans Peymann v. Perini Corp.
  507 F.2d 1318· 1st Cir.· 1974-11-22 ·cited 50×
  The jury verdict for the defendant on the unseaworthiness count rendered moot the plaintiff's claim regarding the negligence count, as both theories relied on the same deficiencies and causation standards.
• Alphonse CYR, Jr. v. B. Offen & Co., Inc.
  501 F.2d 1145· 1st Cir.· 1974-07-18 ·cited 50×
  The court held that New Hampshire law permits contributory negligence and assumption of risk as defenses to strict liability claims, and that a successor corporation can be held liable for its predecessor's torts if there is sufficient continuity of business operations. The court
• Gale S. Gill v. United States
  429 F.2d 1072· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-01 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the government's negligent weather reporting was a proximate cause of the crash, but remanded to determine pilot negligence and apply settlement credits.
• United States & Baker Aircraft Sales v. Furumizo
  381 F.2d 965· 9th Cir.· 1967-08-09 ·cited 50×
  The court held that air traffic controllers' negligence in failing to act when they saw a pilot disregard a warning was a proximate cause of the accident, and that damages awarded were not excessive or inadequate.
• Emmett E. Page v. ST. Louis Sw. Ry. Co.
  349 F.2d 820· 5th Cir.· 1965-08-10 ·cited 50×
  The court held that evidence of a railroad pension is inadmissible under the collateral source rule in FELA cases, and that a single standard of causation should apply to both the employee's claim and the railroad's defense of contributory negligence.
• Beikirch v. City OF Jacksonville Beach
  159 So. 2d 898· Fla. 1st DCA· 1964-01-07 ·cited 50×
  In this negligence action against a municipal corporation, the court reversed a summary judgment for the defendant, holding that questions of negligence and contributory negligence must ordinarily be submitted to a jury when the evidence is susceptible of conflicting inferences o
• S. Cross S.S. Co., Inc. v. Georgios Firipis
  285 F.2d 651· 4th Cir.· 1960-12-28 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the Jones Act applied due to substantial contacts with the United States, and affirmed the district court's awards for wages, double wages, and damages, finding the shipowner liable for unpaid wages and negligence.
• Adams v. Elliott
  128 Fla. 79· Fla.· 1937-04-22 ·cited 50×
  A property owner who maintained a pier with pilings over a beach designated as a public highway by statute was held liable for negligently failing to warn of the pilings, causing injury to a vehicle passenger. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the plaintiff, holding
• Mathers v. Botsford
  86 Fla. 40· Fla.· 1923-06-14 ·cited 50×
  This case involves a pedestrian injured by a car on a public highway at night. The court affirmed a jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that the defendant driver's negligence in failing to exercise due care when blinded by oncoming headlights caused the injury.
• Morris v. The Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co.
  43 Fla. 10· Fla.· 1901-01-01 ·cited 50×
  This case addresses the liability of a railroad company for injuries to a child caused by its train cars in a railway yard. The Florida Supreme Court reverses the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, holding that railroad companies must exercise care commensurate
• Jones v. Hoffman
  272 So. 2d 529· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-02-08 ·cited 49×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected Florida's common law doctrine of contributory negligence in favor of comparative negligence, holding that a plaintiff's negligence should diminish rather than bar recovery. This landmark decision arose from a wrongful death action foll
• Poindexter v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co.
  56 So. 2d 905· Fla.· 1951-10-09 ·cited 49×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed an order granting a new trial to a railroad company after a jury awarded damages to a plaintiff injured in a collision with a stationary locomotive. The court found that the trial judge erred in substituting his judgment for the jury's verdict,
• Greiper v. Coburn
  139 Fla. 293· Fla.· 1939-07-18 ·cited 49×
  Abraham Greiper appealed a jury verdict finding him not guilty of negligence in a personal injury suit arising from a motor vehicle accident in Miami Beach. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the verdict, holding that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the law of neg
• DelLouise Greene v. Jas. T. Miller and wife
  102 Fla. 767· Fla.· 1931-08-06 ·cited 49×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for defendants in a negligence case where the plaintiff was injured as a guest in an automobile negligently operated by an adult son with the owner's knowledge and consent. The court held that automobile owners are liable for negligen
• Greer v. Illgen
  79 Fla. 383· Fla.· 1920-03-22 ·cited 49×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a personal injury judgment for a minor injured while working in a lumber mill, finding sufficient evidence of employer negligence and no clear contributory negligence.
• Farnsworth v. Tampa Elec. Co.
  62 Fla. 166· Fla.· 1911-06-01 ·cited 49×
  Farnsworth sued Tampa Electric Company for damages from a collision between the company's electric streetcar and his automobile at an intersection in Tampa. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment for the defendant, holding that the jury instructions imprope
• Moore v. Taylor Concrete & Supply Co., Inc.
  553 So. 2d 787· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-12-20 ·cited 48×
  Jacqueline Moore appeals a jury verdict finding her 52% negligent in a motor vehicle accident with a Taylor Concrete truck, claiming various evidentiary and closing argument errors. The court reverses and orders a new trial due to highly prejudicial questioning suggesting the tru
• Garrison Ret. Home Corp. v. Hancock
  484 So. 2d 1257· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-10-02 ·cited 48×
  Garrison Retirement Home Corp. appealed orders granting summary judgment on liability to Kenneth and Jeanne Hancock, who were injured when a resident operated his car on the facility's premises. The court held that the retirement home owed a duty of reasonable care to the Hancock
• S. C. Loveland, Inc. v. E. W. Towing, Inc.
  608 F.2d 160· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-12 ·cited 48×
  The court affirmed the lower court's apportionment of fault and finding of liability, including the State of Florida's comparative negligence for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the collision.
• Shellman v. United States Lines, Inc.
  528 F.2d 675· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-21 ·cited 48×
  A longshoreman injured by the concurring negligence of his stevedore employer and the shipowner can recover the full amount of his damages from the shipowner, and the stevedore's compensation lien is not reduced by the stevedore's negligence.
• Albertson v. Stark
  294 So. 2d 698· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-05-24 ·cited 48×
  Appellant sought damages for personal injuries from a motor vehicle collision but lost at jury trial. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because defense counsel improperly argued to the jury that the defendant had not been charged with a driving violation,
• Hoppe v. Midwest Conveyor Co., Inc.
  485 F.2d 1196· 8th Cir.· 1973-10-16 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant, as there was sufficient evidence of a dangerous design and that the plaintiff's use of the machine was reasonably foreseeable.
• Rivera v. Rederi A/B Nordstjernan
  456 F.2d 970· 1st Cir.· 1972-03-15 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to submit contributory negligence to the jury, but erred in the amount of damages awarded to one plaintiff.
• Bayamon Thom McAN, Inc. v. Miranda
  409 F.2d 968· 1st Cir.· 1969-04-22 ·cited 48×
  The court held that defendants Kiddielane and Melville were not liable as a matter of law because the hobbyhorse was not defective and its hazards were obvious, but affirmed the judgment against Bayamon because its employee's distraction of the mother was a jury question of negli
• Simpson v. Skelly OIL Co.
  371 F.2d 563· 8th Cir.· 1967-02-03 ·cited 48×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the trial court's judgment n.o.v. because there was insufficient evidence of negligence proximately causing the plaintiff's injuries.
• Christopherson v. Kathalene Tibbels Humphrey
  366 F.2d 323· 10th Cir.· 1966-09-15 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant, as reasonable inferences from the evidence could support a finding of negligence and contributory negligence should have been a jury question.
• Midstate Hauling Co. v. Fowler
  176 So. 2d 87· Fla.· 1965-05-19 ·cited 48×
  Midstate Hauling Company and its driver Robert O. Knight appealed a reversal of a jury verdict in favor of defendants in a wrongful death case. The Florida Supreme Court held that a jury instruction on sudden emergency and darting out was properly given because it conditioned app
• Matarese v. Leesburg Elks Club
  171 So. 2d 606· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-01-15 ·cited 48×
  In a slip-and-fall case arising from a dance floor accident, the court reversed a summary judgment granted against the plaintiff, holding that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving there was no genuine issue of material fact and that judgment as a matter of law was w
• Clark v. The Pa. R.R. Co.
  328 F.2d 591· 2d Cir.· 1964-02-14 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in allowing witnesses not listed in the pre-trial order, refusing a specific assumption of risk instruction, and admitting a map with certain markings, affirming the jury verdict for the defendant.
• Thomas v. Hogan
  308 F.2d 355· 4th Cir.· 1962-09-12 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the hospital record was inadmissible to prove the accuracy of a blood test due to a fatal break in the chain of identification of the specimen.
• Gypsum Carrier, Inc. v. Handelsman
  307 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1962-08-01 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a seaman's fraudulent concealment of prior claims in an employment application does not bar recovery under the Jones Act or for maintenance and cure. It also held that state disability benefits received by the seaman are not deductible from Jones Act damages o
• Miller v. Brazel
  300 F.2d 283· 10th Cir.· 1962-01-30 ·cited 48×
  The court held that while an instruction on contributory negligence was erroneously given, it was not reversible error given the general verdict. The court also affirmed the refusal to instruct on res ipsa loquitur as it was raised too late and factually inapplicable.
• Emerson v. Holloway Concrete Prods. Co., Inc.
  282 F.2d 271· 5th Cir.· 1960-06-29 ·cited 48×
  The dissent argues that the Florida Death Statute, by its plain language, allows recovery for maritime death if the decedent could have recovered in admiralty, and that the majority incorrectly applied prior case law instead of the statute.
• Stokes v. United States
  144 F.2d 82· 2d Cir.· 1944-07-13 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial judge's findings regarding the libellant's contributory negligence were justified, warranting a partial abatement of damages.
• Ivey Jackson v. Edwards
  144 Fla. 187· Fla.· 1940-08-05 ·cited 48×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a guest passenger injured in a motor vehicle accident can recover damages under the 1937 guest statute only if the injury was caused by gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct, and that a complaint alleging such conduct must plead the
• Atlantic Greyhound Lines v. Mrs. Susie B. Lovett
  134 Fla. 505· Fla.· 1938-10-10 ·cited 48×
  Atlantic Greyhound Lines appealed a jury verdict awarding Mrs. Lovett $3,350 in damages for injuries sustained when a bus employee forcibly removed her baggage from inside the bus in violation of her alleged instructions. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the carri
• Graives v. State
  127 Fla. 182· Fla.· 1936-02-24 ·cited 48×
  Melvin O. Graives was convicted of two counts of manslaughter arising from a single automobile accident that killed two persons. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, rejecting nine questions presented challenging various aspects of jury instructions, evidence admiss
• Charlotte Harbor & N. Ry. Co. v. Truette
  81 Fla. 152· Fla.· 1921-02-11 ·cited 48×
  A widow sued the Charlotte Harbor & Northern Railway Company for wrongful death after her husband, a telephone lineman employed by the company, was killed when a motor car he was riding struck a cow on the railroad track. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the judgment, finding t
• Bailey v. Y & O Press Co., Inc.
  770 F.2d 601· 6th Cir.· 1985-08-16 ·cited 47×
  The court held that Ohio's comparative negligence statute does not apply to strict liability actions and that the district court's failure to provide a limiting instruction regarding industry standards testimony was prejudicial error.