Contributory Negligence

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

• Dupuis v. Heider
  113 Fla. 679· Fla.· 1934-01-06 ·cited 42×
  A 13-year-old boy suffered severe injuries when he fell from a milk truck operated by the defendant's driver and was run over. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a $18,000 jury verdict, finding error in the jury instructions on damages (failure to reduce future lost earnings to p
• Wilkinson v. Pensacola & Atl. R.R. Co.
  35 Fla. 82· Fla.· 1895-01-01 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed a lower court's ruling, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the specific cause of action alleged in his declaration. The plaintiff claimed a railroad fireman negligently threw wood from a train, but the evidence did not support this specific allegation.
• S. Fla. R.R. Co. v. Weese
  32 Fla. 212· Fla.· 1893-06-01 ·cited 42×
  South Florida Railroad Company appeals from a judgment for Edward Weese, an engine wiper injured in the railroad's Tampa yard. The Florida Supreme Court reverses, holding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the railroad's engineer, Coleman, could be liable as
• Vanskike v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
  725 F.2d 1146· 8th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for a new trial or remittitur based on allegedly improper closing arguments and an excessive verdict, nor in limiting cross-examination regarding collateral source payments or excluding evidence o
• Reyes v. Vantage S.S. Co., Inc.
  558 F.2d 238· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-26 ·cited 41×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority incorrectly found the shipowner's negligence to be a legal cause of the decedent's death and that the sale of beer did not render the ship unseaworthy or constitute negligence.
• Provenza v. Am. Exp. Lines, Inc.
  324 F.2d 660· 4th Cir.· 1963-11-04 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring do not impose additional duties on shipowners towards non-employees, as the regulations explicitly exclude such application.
• First Nat'l Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Leesburg Transfer & Storage, Inc.
  139 So. 2d 476· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-03-28 ·cited 41×
  An insurance broker was sued for breach of an oral contract to double the insured's fire insurance coverage. The trial court found for the plaintiff and awarded damages equal to the amount of additional insurance allegedly promised. The appellate court reversed and remanded, hold
• Mertz v. Krueger
  58 So.2d 160· Fla.· 1952-03-11 ·cited 41×
  The Supreme Court of Florida reversed a directed verdict for the defendants in a personal injury case. The court held that the questions of the defendants' negligence and the plaintiff's contributory negligence were for the jury to decide, not the judge.
• Walker v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., Inc.
  193 F.2d 772· 2d Cir.· 1952-01-10 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions regarding the plaintiff master's duties to repair the vessel were inadequate, requiring a new trial.
• Brandt v. Dodd
  150 Fla. 635· Fla.· 1942-05-26 ·cited 41×
  This appeal challenges a $12,000 judgment for pedestrian injuries caused by an automobile driven with the defendant's knowledge and consent. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that despite potential contributory negligence issues, the case properly went to t
• Toll v. Waters
  138 Fla. 349· Fla.· 1939-05-30 ·cited 41×
  This case involves an automobile collision negligence suit where Mrs. Waters lost her right arm and her husband sought damages. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict of $10,000 for Mrs. Waters and $290.40 for her husband, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding
• Turlington v. Tampa Elec. Co.
  62 Fla. 398· Fla.· 1911-06-01 ·cited 41×
  Henrietta Turlington, widow of Henry E. Turlington, sued Tampa Electric Company for negligence after her husband died from injuries sustained while diving off a spring-board at the company's public bathing facility. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal o
• Vance v. Am. Haw. Cruises, Inc.
  789 F.2d 790· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the damage award but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest, remanding for a determination of whether special circumstances justified the denial.
• Shu-Tao LIN v. McDONNELL Douglas Corp. & Am. Airlines, Inc.
  742 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 40×
  The court held that using remittitur to recalculate damages from scratch deprives defendants of their right to a jury trial, and thus a new trial is required for pecuniary loss.
• Ryszard Szumlicz v. Norwegian Am. Line, Inc.
  698 F.2d 1192· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that sufficient US contacts justified retaining jurisdiction and applying US law, and that there was no evidence of contributory negligence.
• J. C. Motor Lines, Inc. v. Trailways BUS Sys., Inc.
  689 F.2d 599· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-21 ·cited 40×
  A party who fails to object to the omission of special issues or the form of special interrogatories in the trial court waives the right to raise these issues on appeal.
• Eloy S. Pluyer v. Mitsui O. S. K. Lines, Ltd.
  664 F.2d 1243· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the vessel was liable for furnishing an unsafe ladder, and that the open and obvious nature of the danger did not bar recovery because the use of the ladder was unavoidable. The court also affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest.
• Collom v. City OF ST. Petersburg
  400 So. 2d 507· Fla. 2d DCA· 1981-06-03 ·cited 40×
  This case addresses the scope of governmental liability following Florida's abolition of sovereign immunity. The court reversed summary judgment for the City of St. Petersburg in a wrongful death action, holding that once a government decides to act—even discretionary acts—it mus
• Lindsay v. Ortho Pharm. Corp.
  637 F.2d 87· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-08 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the admission of post-accident labeling changes and the jury charge on contributory negligence constituted reversible error, requiring a new trial.
• Bartak v. Bell-Galyardt & Wells, Inc.
  629 F.2d 523· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to give a contributory negligence instruction to the jury, as there was sufficient evidence to support such a defense. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the negligence issues.
• Rodrigue v. Dixilyn Corp.
  620 F.2d 537· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-03 ·cited 40×
  Contributory negligence is not a defense to strict liability under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2317; only the victim's fault constituting an irresistible and unforeseeable cause can absolve the defendant.
• Hlodan v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc.
  611 F.2d 71· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-28 ·cited 40×
  The court held that nonpecuniary damages are recoverable under a general maritime unseaworthiness claim joined with a Jones Act claim for deaths occurring in territorial waters, and that the jury's findings on negligence and damages were supported by the evidence.
• Augustus Chavis v. Finnlines Ltd.
  576 F.2d 1072· 4th Cir.· 1978-05-22 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the jury instructions, taken as a whole, fairly and adequately stated the pertinent legal principles, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to give certain requested instructions.
• McGARRY v. United States
  549 F.2d 587· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-06 ·cited 40×
  The United States, as employer of an independent contractor, can be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for failing to exercise reasonable care to ensure the contractor's safety precautions, even if the contractor's negligence caused the injury. The discretionary functi
• Sadowski v. Bombardier Ltd.
  539 F.2d 615· 7th Cir.· 1976-07-22 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motions for a new trial and relief from judgment, nor in refusing to submit special verdict forms or a contributory negligence instruction.
• Jeter v. ST. Regis Paper Co.
  507 F.2d 973· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-06 ·cited 40×
  The court held that OSHA does not provide a private right of action for an employee of an independent contractor against a property owner, and the evidence was insufficient to support claims of assumed safety engineering responsibilities or other theories of liability.
• Lones v. Detroit
  398 F.2d 914· 6th Cir.· 1968-07-31 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not err in submitting the issues of the minor plaintiff's contributory negligence and the railroad's last clear chance to the jury, and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• Wise v. Jacksonville GAS Corp.
  97 So. 2d 704· Fla. 1st DCA· 1957-11-05 ·cited 40×
  Ruby Wise sued Jacksonville Gas Corporation for injuries from carbon monoxide gas exposure caused by the company's negligent maintenance of a water heater. A jury awarded her $15,000 in damages, but the trial court granted the gas company's motion for a new trial on damages while
• E. L. Farmer & Co. v. Hooks
  239 F.2d 547· 10th Cir.· 1956-11-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances, and the jury's findings on contributory negligence and assumption of risk were supported by the evidence.
• Turner v. Modern Beauty Supply Co., Inc.
  152 Fla. 3· Fla.· 1942-11-20 ·cited 40×
  In this personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for the plaintiff despite the defendant's arguments that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, that insurance references improperly influenced the verdic
• Fort Dodge Hotel Co. of Fort Dodge v. Bartelt
  119 F.2d 253· 8th Cir.· 1941-04-23 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the burden of proving contributory negligence was on the defendant, as Iowa law requires the plaintiff to prove freedom from contributory negligence.
• Peninsular Tel. Co. v. Marks
  144 Fla. 652· Fla.· 1940-11-01 ·cited 40×
  Peninsular Telephone Company appeals a jury verdict finding it negligent for maintaining a telephone pole dangerously close to a sharp curve on a city street, where the pole was struck by a vehicle. The court affirms, holding that utility companies owe a duty to exercise reasonab
• H. E. Wolfe Constr. Co., Inc. v. Nila Laure Ellison
  127 Fla. 808· Fla.· 1936-08-03 ·cited 40×
  H. E. Wolfe Construction Company appeals a negligence verdict finding it liable for $7,500 in damages while its co-defendant Barco Motors, Inc. was found not guilty, despite evidence showing both defendants' negligence contributed to the plaintiff's injury. The Florida Supreme Co
• Hainlin v. Budge
  56 Fla. 342· Fla.· 1908-06-01 ·cited 40×
  In this negligence action involving an automobile accident, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict for the defendant and ordered a new trial. The court held that an instruction regarding the burden of proof on contributory negligence was erroneous and misleading, and
• Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. Mooney
  40 Fla. 17· Fla.· 1898-01-01 ·cited 40×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for an injured railroad employee, holding that under Florida's 1891 railroad liability statute, an employee injured by a co-employee's negligence must prove either his own freedom from fault or the co-employee's negligence before any
• Jenkins v. Whittaker Corp.
  785 F.2d 720· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-24 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court properly asserted personal jurisdiction, correctly applied Hawaii law, and did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary or jury instruction rulings regarding res ipsa loquitur and strict liability. However, the court reversed the denial o
• Lewis v. Timco, Inc.
  716 F.2d 1425· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-27 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the doctrine of comparative fault applies in products liability suits maintained under the maritime jurisdiction of federal courts, even when liability is based on strict liability.
• Brock v. Coral Drilling, Inc.
  477 F.2d 211· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-20 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the employer breached its warranty of workmanlike service by proceeding with unloading in unsafe conditions, entitling the shipowner to indemnity. The court also affirmed the denial of indemnity from Shell.
• Gen. Elec. Co. v. Moretz
  270 F.2d 780· 4th Cir.· 1959-09-16 ·cited 39×
  A carrier's contractual obligation to safely secure cargo includes an implied warranty of workmanlike service, entitling the shipper to indemnity for losses caused by the carrier's breach, even if the shipper was also negligent, and this contractual indemnity is not barred by a w
• Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Martin
  56 So.2d 509· Fla.· 1952-01-04 ·cited 39×
  The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed a jury verdict against Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company for a fatal collision at a railroad crossing. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of negligence and the application of the last clear chance doctrine, and
• Eli Witt Cigar & Tobacco Co. v. Matatics
  55 So.2d 549· Fla.· 1951-12-14 ·cited 39×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment against a tobacco company, holding that the company could be liable for injuries sustained in a second fall, even if that fall was caused by a dizzy spell resulting from an initial injury caused by the company's employee. The court es
• Cent. Theatres, Inc. v. Henriette Wilkinson
  154 Fla. 589· Fla.· 1944-06-09 ·cited 39×
  In this negligence action, the Florida Supreme Court held that a movie theater operator was liable for injuries to a patron struck by a BB pellet fired through a defective emergency door, finding the theater's knowledge of unsupervised armed youths on the premises and failure to
• Amon Teddleton v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  145 Fla. 671· Fla.· 1941-01-24 ·cited 39×
  A farm laborer died from contact with a sagging, uninsulated electric power line owned by Florida Power & Light Company. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant based on the deceased's contributory negligence, but Florida's Supreme Court reversed, holding that the ev
• Sears v. Geiger
  123 Fla. 446· Fla.· 1936-03-16 ·cited 39×
  Sears, Roebuck & Company appealed a judgment awarding damages to a customer injured when her clothing caught on a protruding bicycle rack in the store's aisle. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the store's failure to warn of the hazard or remove it constituted negl
• Mrs. LaMira Murden v. Miami Poultry & Egg Co.
  113 Fla. 870· Fla.· 1934-02-07 ·cited 39×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for the defendant in a wrongful death case. Despite finding that the jury instructions given were erroneous, the court held that the evidence presented did not establish the defendant's negligence, thus supporting the jury's verdict f
• Anderson v. Crawford
  111 Fla. 381· Fla.· 1933-07-13 ·cited 39×
  Lee Anderson was injured when his automobile was struck by a freight train operated by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company at a railroad crossing in Kissimmee. Anderson sued for damages, but the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, h
• Fla. Motor Lines, Inc. v. Mollie Jane Ward
  102 Fla. 1105· Fla.· 1931-10-06 ·cited 39×
  Florida Motor Lines, Inc. appeals a wrongful death judgment of $33,500 arising from a motor bus-automobile collision on the Dixie Highway in which the driver of a Dodge car was killed. The Florida Supreme Court reverses, finding that the Dodge driver was solely responsible for th
• Martha Molton for the Estate of William Molton v. City OF Cleveland
  839 F.2d 240· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the City of Cleveland could not be held liable under § 1983 for the decedent's suicide due to a lack of evidence of a municipal policy or custom, but affirmed the jury's verdict on state law claims of wrongful death and assault and battery.
• Wilfredo Acosta v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
  717 F.2d 828· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-21 ·cited 38×
  Punitive damages may be awarded in strict products liability cases under Virgin Islands law, but require proof of outrageous conduct by clear and convincing evidence.
• Owen v. Kerr-McGEE Corp. & the Home Indem. Co.
  698 F.2d 236· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-18 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court did not err in denying post-trial motions or in excluding expert testimony on the ultimate issue of causation.