Primary Negligence

23 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Olin's Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Royal Cont'l Hotels, Inc.
  187 So. 2d 349· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-05-27 ·cited 33×
  Olin's Rent-A-Car System sought reversal of summary judgment in an indemnification action by Royal Continental Hotels, which had paid a judgment to hotel invitees injured due to Olin's negligence. The court affirmed, holding that Olin was liable under common law indemnity princip
• Goosman v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc.
  320 F.2d 45· 4th Cir.· 1963-06-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for production of the driver's contemporaneous written reports, as good cause was shown.
• Friedman v. Fordyce Concrete, Inc.
  362 F.2d 386· 8th Cir.· 1966-06-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous, and that the admission of evidence regarding the plaintiff's license suspension was proper for impeachment.
• Wright v. Albuquerque Auto-Truck Stop Plaza, Inc.
  591 F.2d 585· 10th Cir.· 1979-01-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party, nor did it err in its jury instructions regarding the scope of employment.
• Bates v. Hensley
  414 F.2d 1006· 8th Cir.· 1969-09-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's contributory negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout and yield to oncoming traffic barred recovery, even if the plaintiff was also negligent.
• Glasscock v. United States
  323 F.2d 589· 4th Cir.· 1963-09-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of plaintiff's negligence as the proximate cause of his injury was supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous.
• Wyatt v. McMULLEN
  350 So. 2d 1115· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-10-17 ·cited 10×
  A father appealed the dismissal of a negligence complaint against his son's neighbor (Joseph H. Smith) arising from a BB gun injury to the son's eye. The court held that Smith could be liable for negligence based on his own failure to supervise and control a minor under his care,
• Mrs. Edith Oliver v. Hallett Constr. Co.
  421 F.2d 365· 8th Cir.· 1970-01-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury could reasonably infer that the decedent was not contributorily negligent and that the contractor was negligent, despite the majority's contrary conclusions.
• Chicago v. Admiral-Merchants Motor Freight Inc.
  397 F.2d 472· 7th Cir.· 1968-06-17 ·cited 6×
  A railroad's failure to maintain operative warning signals at a crossing, which leads to a collision, constitutes active and primary negligence under Illinois law, precluding common law indemnity from a party whose active negligence also contributed to the collision.
• Fields v. Ross OIL Co.
  250 F.2d 498· 8th Cir.· 1957-12-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous, thus affirming the judgment for the defendants.
• Taska v. Wolfe
  208 F.2d 705· 4th Cir.· 1953-12-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant's primary negligence and was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
• Burl D. Pilgrim and Martha Pilgrim v. Fortune Drilling Co., Inc.
  653 F.2d 982· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-17 ·cited 4×
  An employer is not liable for an employee's negligence while commuting to or from work, even if the employee is fatigued, unless the employer has a right to control the employee's conduct during that commute.
• Gacl, Inc. v. Riviera Tile & Terrazzo Co.
  300 So. 2d 39· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-09-17 ·cited 4×
  GACL, Inc. appeals the dismissal of its indemnity action against Riviera Tile and its insurer after GACL paid a judgment resulting from injuries caused by a soap dish that Riviera installed. The court reversed, holding that GACL's complaint adequately alleged passive negligence o
• Walker Mfg. Co. v. Dickerson
  619 F.2d 305· 4th Cir.· 1980-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an indemnity claim based on breach of warranty is subject to the UCC's statute of limitations, which begins to run at the time of delivery.
• United States v. Marshall
  391 F.2d 880· 1st Cir.· 1968-03-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant was not primarily negligent because it could not reasonably anticipate the plaintiff's actions of driving a golf cart into high, concealing rough, and therefore the judgment for the plaintiff must be set aside.
• Higgins v. Thompson
  391 F.2d 246· 4th Cir.· 1968-02-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence presented a jury question regarding both primary and contributory negligence, precluding a directed verdict.
• Hall v. McKINNEY
  211 F.2d 874· 4th Cir.· 1954-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the defendant, as questions of fact regarding negligence and contributory negligence should have been decided by the jury.
• City OF Tampa v. Wilton Norris
  101 So. 2d 30· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-03-07 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of negligence to go to the jury, as the sudden stop was not shown to be unusual or extraordinary under the circumstances.
• The HERTZ Corp. v. R.I. Hosp.
  784 So. 2d 506· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-04-12
  A car rental agency, liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine for injuries caused by its lessee, is entitled to indemnification from the lessee's employer if the accident occurred within the scope of employment.
• Barnes v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.
  333 F.2d 192· 4th Cir.· 1964-04-14
  The court held that the trial judge properly submitted issues of primary negligence and contributory negligence to the jury, and properly admitted railroad operating rules into evidence, affirming the jury's verdict.
• Tridigo v. Timberlake
  298 F.2d 805· 4th Cir.· 1962-02-06
  The court held that the trial judge erred in finding the plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law, and that the issue should have been submitted to the jury.
• S. Ry. Co. v. Toney
  156 F.2d 261· 4th Cir.· 1946-07-11
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to submit the question of the railroad's primary negligence to the jury and that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law.