Contributory Negligence

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

• McLAUGHLIN v. Trelleborgs Angfartygs A/B
  408 F.2d 1334· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-30 ·cited 44×
  A shipowner is entitled to indemnity from a stevedore employer when the stevedore's employee is contributorily negligent, even if the shipowner also contributed to the injury.
• Pickel v. Rosen
  214 So. 2d 730· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-10-15 ·cited 44×
  A minor injured in an automobile accident recovered a jury verdict establishing the defendant's liability and awarding the father full medical expenses, but the jury awarded the minor zero dollars for pain and suffering. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial o
• Crews v. Warren
  157 So. 2d 553· Fla. 1st DCA· 1963-11-05 ·cited 44×
  In this negligence action, the court affirmed jury verdicts against truck owners and a driver for injuries sustained by a minor passenger in a three-vehicle accident. The appellants challenged various jury instructions and the trial judge's conduct, but the appellate court held t
• Aliene Alessi and John Alessi v. Farkas
  118 So. 2d 658· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-03-02 ·cited 44×
  In this personal injury action arising from an automobile collision, the appellate court reversed the trial court's directed verdict for defendants and reinstated the jury verdict for plaintiffs, holding that the trial court improperly withdrew the contributory negligence issue f
• Ford Motor Co. v. Loreto Mondragon
  271 F.2d 342· 8th Cir.· 1959-11-10 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present substantial evidence that any alleged negligence by the defendant was the proximate cause of the collision and injuries, and therefore, the defendant's motions for directed verdict should have been sustained.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Zahn
  265 F.2d 729· 8th Cir.· 1959-04-16 ·cited 44×
  A manufacturer has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design and manufacture of its products, including reasonable inspection to discover defects, and can be held liable for injuries proximately caused by a breach of that duty, even if the specific injury was not foreseeab
• Saunders v. Kaplan
  101 So. 2d 181· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-03-13 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the plaintiff's deposition did not conclusively demonstrate contributory negligence as a matter of law, thus summary judgment was improper.
• Wright v. Carter Prods., Inc.
  244 F.2d 53· 2d Cir.· 1957-05-01 ·cited 44×
  A manufacturer's duty to warn of potential harm from its product is not solely measured by quantitative standards; even a small percentage of users experiencing severe reactions can trigger a duty to warn if the harm is foreseeable.
• Read v. United States
  201 F.2d 758· 3d Cir.· 1953-02-04 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the shipowner's liability for unseaworthiness could not be delegated, and the contractor's breach of its duty to provide adequate lighting and safeguards entitled the shipowner to indemnity.
• Thomson v. Boles
  123 F.2d 487· 8th Cir.· 1941-11-25 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the plaintiff was supported by substantial evidence, and the defendant's arguments regarding the plaintiff's position, the bridge's construction status, and alleged counsel misconduct did not warrant reversal.
• Stanley v. Powers
  125 Fla. 322· Fla.· 1936-09-22 ·cited 44×
  In this personal injury case involving a vehicle collision, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a $15,000 judgment for the plaintiff, finding the verdict was unsupported by the overwhelming physical and corroborated eyewitness evidence and that the trial court abused its discretio
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Watkins
  97 Fla. 350· Fla.· 1929-03-19 ·cited 44×
  Jennie M. Watkins brought a wrongful death action against Atlantic Coast Line Railroad for injuries to her husband at a railroad crossing in Seffner, Florida. The trial court entered judgment for $10,000, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed and reduced the award to $5,000, fin
• Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
  773 So. 2d 1098· Fla.· 2000-10-05 ·cited 43×
  This is a Florida Supreme Court order adopting proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, submitted by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. The court approves substantive amendments to multiple rules and forms, effective January 1, 2001.
• Chesapeake BAY Bridge & Tunnel Dist. v. Lauritzen
  404 F.2d 1001· 4th Cir.· 1968-05-02 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the Bridge-Tunnel District, by entering federally regulated commerce, waived sovereign immunity and could be sued in federal court. It also held that the M/S Bella Dan was contributorily negligent due to its pilot's careless navigation and the crew's failure t
• Quality Shell Homes & Supply Co., Inc. v. Roley
  186 So. 2d 837· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-05-26 ·cited 43×
  The court held that an employer can be estopped from raising the exclusivity provisions of the Florida Workmen's Compensation Law if their conduct leads an employee to detrimentally rely on the absence of coverage.
• Collins Fruit Co. v. Giglio
  184 So. 2d 447· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-03-23 ·cited 43×
  In a wrongful death case, the trial judge granted a new trial after a jury verdict favoring defendants, finding error in preventing plaintiff's counsel from arguing the Last Clear Chance doctrine in rebuttal to the defendants' strong emphasis on contributory negligence. The appel
• Kenneth Smith for Weaver's Lakeland Steam Laundry v. Reuben Coleman
  100 Fla. 1707· Fla.· 1931-01-12 ·cited 43×
  This case addresses whether a trustee operating a business in an active trust can be held liable for workplace injuries and clarifies the scope of admissions under a plea of not guilty in tort actions involving inducement allegations. The court affirmed a judgment for $1500 again
• Egley v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
  84 Fla. 147· Fla.· 1922-07-25 ·cited 43×
  Harry Egley was struck by a train while crossing railroad tracks in his automobile and sued the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company for damages. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a directed verdict for the railroad, holding that Egley failed to exercise reasonable precaution to ob
• Watson v. Builders Square, Inc.
  563 So. 2d 721· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-05-23 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the jury's inadequate damages award and the admission of irrelevant evidence regarding contact with an attorney warranted a new trial on both liability and damages.
• Joia v. Jo-Ja Serv. Corp.
  817 F.2d 908· 1st Cir.· 1987-05-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the employer's motions for directed verdict and judgment n.o.v. were properly denied, and that the water boat owner was not entitled to limit its liability due to privity and knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. Joint and several liability applies under mar
• Merchant v. Ruhle
  740 F.2d 86· 1st Cir.· 1984-08-01 ·cited 42×
  Inconsistent jury verdicts in civil cases do not automatically mandate a new trial, especially when the jury's confusion is understandable and the defendant failed to object to the jury instructions or the verdict.
• Dorine Herndon v. Seven BAR Flying Serv., Inc.
  716 F.2d 1322· 10th Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the trial court's disposition, agreeing that the defendant's liability was limited to its apportioned share of damages, despite a settlement agreement.
• Akermanis v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc.
  688 F.2d 898· 2d Cir.· 1982-09-14 ·cited 42×
  A trial judge cannot use a conditional new trial order with remittitur to increase a jury's finding of a plaintiff's contributory negligence percentage.
• Johnson v. William C. Ellis & Sons Iron Works, Inc.
  604 F.2d 950· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-18 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the repairer (Ellis) was not liable as it did not create or aggravate the dangerous condition and had no duty to warn of obvious dangers. The court reversed the judgment for the manufacturer (Long Reach) due to trial errors, including improperly directing a ve
• Lena v. Morvant
  570 F.2d 626· 6th Cir.· 1978-02-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding expert testimony regarding future wage increases, inflation, and the economic value of household services, and in excluding an expert witness from sequestration.
• Lane v. United States
  529 F.2d 175· 4th Cir.· 1975-11-25 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the 1965 amendment to 14 U.S.C.A. § 86 made the duty to mark sunken vessels discretionary, not mandatory. However, the court remanded for consideration of whether the failure to mark was an abuse of that discretion.
• Snodgrass v. Nelson
  503 F.2d 94· 8th Cir.· 1974-09-27 ·cited 42×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no clear error in the factual findings and no indication that the damages awarded were excessive.
• Perret v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  299 So. 2d 590· Fla.· 1974-07-03 ·cited 42×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the exclusion of evidence of a prior similar accident at a railroad crossing, holding that evidence of a prior train-automobile collision occurring two weeks earlier under similar conditions was admissible to prove the railroad knew of a dangero
• Wallin v. Fuller
  476 F.2d 1204· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-20 ·cited 42×
  A trial court should permit amendment of pleadings to conform to issues actually tried by implied consent, even if those issues were not raised in the pretrial order.
• Mrs. Geraldine W. Greene v. Vantage S.S. Corp.
  466 F.2d 159· 4th Cir.· 1972-08-29 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a wrongful death action under general maritime law allows recovery for the decedent's pain and suffering and funeral expenses, but not for the beneficiary's grief and mental anguish. The court also affirmed the finding that the stevedore did not breach its war
• Little v. Green
  428 F.2d 1061· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-24 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims of unseaworthiness, improper counsel statements, and confusing jury instructions were without merit, affirming the jury's verdict.
• Nordmann v. Nat'l Hotel Co.
  425 F.2d 1103· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-19 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in sending the jury back for further deliberations when their initial verdict was inconsistent, nor in denying a mistrial or a new trial based on the judge's comments or the jury instructions.
• Hatfield v. Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co.
  396 F.2d 721· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-24 ·cited 42×
  A jury verdict awarding nominal damages ($1.00) despite uncontroverted evidence of substantial physical injury and special damages constitutes an abuse of discretion, requiring a new trial on all issues.
• McKEAN v. Kloeppel Hotels, Inc.
  171 So. 2d 552· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-02-09 ·cited 42×
  Stella McKean appeals a summary judgment in favor of Kloeppel Hotels in a negligence action arising from a slip-and-fall on a dance floor. The appellate court affirmed, holding that McKean's admissions in response to requests for admissions established her contributory negligence
• Scott v. Isbrandtsen Co., Inc.
  327 F.2d 113· 4th Cir.· 1964-01-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the submission of a confusing and misleading special interrogatory deprived the plaintiff of a fair jury trial.
• Maxwell Shenker v. United States
  322 F.2d 622· 2d Cir.· 1963-08-21 ·cited 42×
  A shore-based record keeper, injured by a plainly visible dunnage board, cannot recover for unseaworthiness because he was not performing the type of work historically associated with seamen, and the ship was not unseaworthy.
• Lartigue v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. & Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.
  317 F.2d 19· 5th Cir.· 1963-04-19 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the jury instructions on implied warranty and negligence were proper and that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict for the defendants.
• Bowen v. Manuel
  144 So. 2d 341· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-08-15 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for continuance, separation of issues, or directed verdict, and that the issue of contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury.
• Drago v. A/S Inger
  305 F.2d 139· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-03 ·cited 42×
  A stevedoring company's warranty of workmanlike service to a shipowner, even as a third-party beneficiary, includes the duty to remedy dangerous conditions, and the shipowner's own negligence does not necessarily preclude indemnity.
• Dickerson v. Shepard Warner Elevator Co.
  287 F.2d 255· 6th Cir.· 1961-02-24 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant because there was sufficient evidence of negligence to submit the issue to the jury. The court also found that certain evidentiary rulings were erroneous and would require a new trial.
• Bertrand v. S. Pac. Co.
  282 F.2d 569· 9th Cir.· 1960-09-13 ·cited 42×
  A party must distinctly state objections to jury instructions and grounds therefor to preserve the issue for appellate review under Rule 51, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Bashaw v. Dyke
  122 So. 2d 507· Fla. 1st DCA· 1960-08-02 ·cited 42×
  A homeowner sued a builder for negligence after suffering severe injuries when she attempted to move heavy sheetrock placed by the builder's workers during construction. The Florida appellate court reversed the jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that the builder was not negl
• Harrison Richardson v. Gregory
  281 F.2d 626· D.C. Cir.· 1960-07-14 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the last clear chance doctrine and in giving a misleading instruction regarding violations of traffic regulations constituting negligence per se.
• Whetzel v. Jess Fisher Mgmt. Co.
  282 F.2d 943· D.C. Cir.· 1960-07-14 ·cited 42×
• Halecki v. United NEW York & NEW Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Ass'n
  251 F.2d 708· 2d Cir.· 1958-01-10 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the warranty of seaworthiness extends to a business guest performing work traditionally done by the crew, and that under the New Jersey Death Statute, contributory negligence is a limitation on damages, not a bar.
• Kerr v. Caraway
  78 So. 2d 571· Fla.· 1955-03-02 ·cited 42×
  Kerr appeals a jury verdict in favor of Caraways following an automobile intersection accident in Miami. The court reverses and remands for a new trial, finding that the trial court committed reversible error by excluding expert testimony on stopping distances and refusing a jury
• Berti v. Compagnie de Navigation Cyprien Fabre (American Stevedores, Inc.
  213 F.2d 397· 2d Cir.· 1954-05-26 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a vessel owner's duty of seaworthiness is non-delegable and that the owner is not liable for the stevedore's operational negligence if the stevedore had exclusive control. The court also held that the owner was entitled to indemnity from the stevedore.
• Graham v. Lusi
  206 F.2d 223· 5th Cir.· 1953-06-30 ·cited 42×
  The court held that contributory negligence and lack of owner negligence are absolute defenses under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, even in admiralty, and that a latent defect in equipment not discoverable by reasonable care does not establish owner liability.
• United States v. Fotopulos
  180 F.2d 631· 9th Cir.· 1950-03-07 ·cited 42×
• Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Postom
  177 F.2d 53· D.C. Cir.· 1949-07-11 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, as there was substantial evidence to support the jury's findings on negligence and contributory negligence.