25 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Merrill Crossings Associates v. McDonaldgreen2 sentences2022See Merrill Crossings Assocs. v. McDonald, 705 So. 2d 560 , 560–61 (Fla. 1997) (applying the common law doctrine of joint and several liability to intentional torts); First Fin. 2003See Merrill Crossings Assocs. v. McDonald, 705 So.2d 560, 562-63 (Fla.1997). | 2 | 2 |
Fabre v. Marinred2 sentences2003Under the doctrine of joint and several liability, "all negligent defendants were held responsible for the total of the plaintiff's damages regardless of the extent of each defendant's fault in causing the accident." Id. at 1184 . 2000Section 768.81(3), Florida Statutes (1999), provides that trial courts "shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party's percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability." In Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993), this Court observed that the Legislature's intention in enacting section 768.81 was to "replace joint and several liability with a system that requires each party to pay for noneconomic damages only in proportion to the percentage of fault by which that defendant contributed to the accident." Fabre, 623 So.2d at 11 | 1 | 6 |
Walt Disney World Co. v. Woodgreen2 sentences1997Indeed, following the district court decision in Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood, 489 So.2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), approved, 515 So.2d 198 (Fla.1987), the Florida legislature did enact a comparative fault statute, section 768.81, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), that squarely directed that any judgment against a defendant be based on the defendant's percentage of fault in causing any damage and not on joint and several liability. [8] Section 768.81(3) provides: In cases to which this section applies, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party's percentage o 1995For example, in Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood, 515 So.2d 198 (Fla. 1987), a tortfeasor, Disney, was found to be responsible for only one percent of the total cause of the claimant's injury, but under the doctrine of joint and several liability, Disney was required to pay all of the claimant's damages reduced only by the percentage of cause attributed to the claimant. | 1 | 3 |
Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, Inc.green1 sentence2022The comparative fault statute, section 768.81, Florida Statutes, provides that “[i]n a negligence action, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.” § 4 768.81(3), Fla. Stat. (2019). “[I]n determining noneconomic damages fault must be apportioned among all responsible entities who contribute to an accident even though not all of them have been joined as defendants.” Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Servs., Inc., 678 So. 2d 1262, 1263 (Fla. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Port Charlotte HMA, LLC v. Suarezgreen1 sentence2018Id.; see also Port Charlotte HMA, LLC v. Suarez, 210 So. 3d 187, 190-91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Gross v. Lyonsgreen1 sentence2004Gross v. Lyons, 763 So.2d at 279 ( quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433A(2) cmt. i. (1965)). | 1 | 1 |
Ramirez v. Stategreen1 sentence2004This standard requires that an expert's testimony be "based on a scientific principle or discovery that is `sufficiently established to have gained acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.' " Ramirez v. State, 651 So.2d 1164, 1166-67 (Fla.1995). [6] The defendants did not renew their Frye motion during the course of Dr. Persky's testimony. [7] This statute provides in pertinent part: (3) Apportionment of damages In an action to which this section applies, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party's percentage of fault and not on the ba | 1 | 1 |
Conley v. Boyle Drug Co.green1 sentence2001As this Court explained in Conley v. Boyle Drug Co., 570 So.2d 275, 285 (Fla. 1990): [J]oint and several liability is only favored within this state in those limited circumstances set forth in sections 768.81(3), (4) and (5), Florida Statutes (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Allengreen1 sentence2001See Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182, 1184 (Fla.1993) (citing Louisville & N. R.R. v. Allen, 67 Fla. 257 , 65 So. 8 (1914)). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Department of Ins.green2 sentences1996Second, in Smith v. Department of Insurance, 507 So.2d 1080 (Fla.1987), we recognized, by denying constitutional attacks upon section 768.81, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), id. at 1090, 1091 , the legislature's authority to legislate in respect to comparative negligence by legislative modification of the common-law doctrine of joint and several liability. 1996Second, in Smith v. Department of Insurance, 507 So.2d 1080 (Fla.1987), we recognized, by denying constitutional attacks upon section 768.81, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), id. at 1090, 1091 , the legislature's authority to legislate in respect to comparative negligence by legislative modification of the common-law doctrine of joint and several liability. | 1 | 1 |
| General Dynamics Corp. v. WRIGHT AIRLINESgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Metropolitan Dade County v. Frederic
green
2 sentences2005Metropolitan Dade County v. Frederic, 698 So.2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 705 So.2d 9 (Fla.1997). 2003Metropolitan Dade County v. Frederic, 698 So.2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev.denied, 705 So.2d 9 (Fla.1997). | 2 | 2003–2005 |
Gouty v. Schnepel
green
2 sentences2005Gouty v. Schnepel, 795 So.2d 959 (Fla.2001). 2003Gouty v. Schnepel, 795 So.2d 959 (Fla.2001). | 2 | 2003–2005 |
Royal Palm Hotel Property, LLC v. Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022“A ‘Fabre defendant’ is a nonparty defendant whom a party defendant asserts is wholly or partially responsible for the negligence alleged.” Royal Palm Hotel Prop., LLC v. Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft, Inc., 133 So. 3d 1108 , 1110 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
D'ANGELO v. Fitzmaurice
green
2 sentences2016In D’Angelo, 863 So.2d at 314 , the supreme court recognized that prior to the enactment of section 768.81, the existing setoff statutes “presuppose[d] the existence of multiple defendants jointly and severally liable for the same damages.” But in 1997, Florida enacted section 768.81(3), which read as follows: APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES.— In cases to which this section applies, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability; provided that with respect to any party whose 2016Thus, by enacting section 768.81, Florida “eliminate[d] joint and several liability for noneconomic damages and limitfed] joint and several liability for economic damages.” 863 So.2d at 314 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Frazier v. Metropolitan Dade County
green
1 sentence2013Section 768.81(3) is the guide to setting the parameters of Mr. Claudio’s responsibility for Mr. Regalado’s award: “In a negligence action, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.” In support of his argument, Mr. Claudio relies on three cases: Frazier, 701 So.2d 418 ; Hudson v. Moss, 653 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); and Gurney v. Cain, 588 So.2d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Gurney v. Cain
green
1 sentence2013Section 768.81(3) is the guide to setting the parameters of Mr. Claudio’s responsibility for Mr. Regalado’s award: “In a negligence action, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.” In support of his argument, Mr. Claudio relies on three cases: Frazier, 701 So.2d 418 ; Hudson v. Moss, 653 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); and Gurney v. Cain, 588 So.2d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Hudson v. Moss
green
1 sentence2013Section 768.81(3) is the guide to setting the parameters of Mr. Claudio’s responsibility for Mr. Regalado’s award: “In a negligence action, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.” In support of his argument, Mr. Claudio relies on three cases: Frazier, 701 So.2d 418 ; Hudson v. Moss, 653 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); and Gurney v. Cain, 588 So.2d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Ferayorni v. Hyundai Motor Co.
green
1 sentence2001Ferayorni I, 711 So.2d at 1173 n. 1. [3] "Human factors," otherwise known as "ergonomics," concerns the relationship between human beings and the objects in the world around them. [4] Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir. 1923). [5] Section 768.81 provides, (3) APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES In cases to which this section applies, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party's percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.... (4) APPLICABILITY (a) This section applies to negligence cases. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Frye v. United States
red
1 sentence2001Ferayorni I, 711 So.2d at 1173 n. 1. [3] "Human factors," otherwise known as "ergonomics," concerns the relationship between human beings and the objects in the world around them. [4] Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir. 1923). [5] Section 768.81 provides, (3) APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES In cases to which this section applies, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party's percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.... (4) APPLICABILITY (a) This section applies to negligence cases. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
cluster 525261
green
1 sentence1999We are not persuaded by defendants' argument that Missouri v. Jenkins "undermines the reasoning in Finch v. City of Vernon, 877 F.2d 1497 (11th Cir. 1989), as to the continued applicability of the doctrine of joint and several liability." First, we note that the Jenkins ruling with regard to comparative fault was based on Missouri's state law. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood
green
1 sentence1997Indeed, following the district court decision in Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood, 489 So.2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), approved, 515 So.2d 198 (Fla.1987), the Florida legislature did enact a comparative fault statute, section 768.81, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), that squarely directed that any judgment against a defendant be based on the defendant's percentage of fault in causing any damage and not on joint and several liability. [8] Section 768.81(3) provides: In cases to which this section applies, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party's percentage o | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough
green
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Department of Corrections v. McGhee
green
1 sentence1996McGhee, 653 So.2d at 1093 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Adkins v. Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
green
1 sentence1996Co., 351 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). [3] The critical portion of section 768.81(3) provides: "In cases to which this section applies, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party's percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability." [4] Judge Ervin concurred in part and dissented in part from the majority opinion. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Lincenberg v. Issen
green
1 sentence1992See Walt Disney World Co., 515 So.2d at 201-02 ; Lincenberg v. Issen, 318 So.2d 386 (Fla.1975). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Taylor v. Delgarno Transportation, Inc.
green
2 sentences1987Harrison v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 295 Md. 442 , 456 A.2d 894 (1983); Arnold v. Hayslett, 655 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1983); Marley v. Kirby, 271 S.C. 122 , 245 S.E.2d 604 (1978); Miller v. Miller, 273 N.C. 228 , 160 S.E.2d 65 (1968); Allman v. Beam, 272 Ala. 110 , 130 So.2d 194 (1961); Watson v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 199 Va. 570 , 100 S.E.2d 774 (1957). [4] Compare Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152 , 646 P.2d 579 (Ct.App.) (abolishing joint and several liability because of its inconsistency with New Mexico's pure comparative negligence system), cert. d 1987Harrison v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 295 Md. 442 , 456 A.2d 894 (1983); Arnold v. Hayslett, 655 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1983); Marley v. Kirby, 271 S.C. 122 , 245 S.E.2d 604 (1978); Miller v. Miller, 273 N.C. 228 , 160 S.E.2d 65 (1968); Allman v. Beam, 272 Ala. 110 , 130 So.2d 194 (1961); Watson v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 199 Va. 570 , 100 S.E.2d 774 (1957). [4] Compare Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152 , 646 P.2d 579 (Ct.App.) (abolishing joint and several liability because of its inconsistency with New Mexico's pure comparative negligence system), cert. d | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc.
red
2 sentences1987Harrison v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 295 Md. 442 , 456 A.2d 894 (1983); Arnold v. Hayslett, 655 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1983); Marley v. Kirby, 271 S.C. 122 , 245 S.E.2d 604 (1978); Miller v. Miller, 273 N.C. 228 , 160 S.E.2d 65 (1968); Allman v. Beam, 272 Ala. 110 , 130 So.2d 194 (1961); Watson v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 199 Va. 570 , 100 S.E.2d 774 (1957). [4] Compare Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152 , 646 P.2d 579 (Ct.App.) (abolishing joint and several liability because of its inconsistency with New Mexico's pure comparative negligence system), cert. d 1987Harrison v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 295 Md. 442 , 456 A.2d 894 (1983); Arnold v. Hayslett, 655 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1983); Marley v. Kirby, 271 S.C. 122 , 245 S.E.2d 604 (1978); Miller v. Miller, 273 N.C. 228 , 160 S.E.2d 65 (1968); Allman v. Beam, 272 Ala. 110 , 130 So.2d 194 (1961); Watson v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 199 Va. 570 , 100 S.E.2d 774 (1957). [4] Compare Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152 , 646 P.2d 579 (Ct.App.) (abolishing joint and several liability because of its inconsistency with New Mexico's pure comparative negligence system), cert. d | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Arnold v. Hayslett
green
1 sentence1987Harrison v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 295 Md. 442 , 456 A.2d 894 (1983); Arnold v. Hayslett, 655 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1983); Marley v. Kirby, 271 S.C. 122 , 245 S.E.2d 604 (1978); Miller v. Miller, 273 N.C. 228 , 160 S.E.2d 65 (1968); Allman v. Beam, 272 Ala. 110 , 130 So.2d 194 (1961); Watson v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 199 Va. 570 , 100 S.E.2d 774 (1957). [4] Compare Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152 , 646 P.2d 579 (Ct.App.) (abolishing joint and several liability because of its inconsistency with New Mexico's pure comparative negligence system), cert. d | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Harrison v. Montgomery County Board of Education
green
2 sentences1987Harrison v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 295 Md. 442 , 456 A.2d 894 (1983); Arnold v. Hayslett, 655 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1983); Marley v. Kirby, 271 S.C. 122 , 245 S.E.2d 604 (1978); Miller v. Miller, 273 N.C. 228 , 160 S.E.2d 65 (1968); Allman v. Beam, 272 Ala. 110 , 130 So.2d 194 (1961); Watson v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 199 Va. 570 , 100 S.E.2d 774 (1957). [4] Compare Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152 , 646 P.2d 579 (Ct.App.) (abolishing joint and several liability because of its inconsistency with New Mexico's pure comparative negligence system), cert. d 1987Harrison v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 295 Md. 442 , 456 A.2d 894 (1983); Arnold v. Hayslett, 655 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1983); Marley v. Kirby, 271 S.C. 122 , 245 S.E.2d 604 (1978); Miller v. Miller, 273 N.C. 228 , 160 S.E.2d 65 (1968); Allman v. Beam, 272 Ala. 110 , 130 So.2d 194 (1961); Watson v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 199 Va. 570 , 100 S.E.2d 774 (1957). [4] Compare Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152 , 646 P.2d 579 (Ct.App.) (abolishing joint and several liability because of its inconsistency with New Mexico's pure comparative negligence system), cert. d | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Marley v. Kirby green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Watson, Adm'x v. Virginia Elec., Etc., Co. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Allman v. Beam
green
2 sentences1987Harrison v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 295 Md. 442 , 456 A.2d 894 (1983); Arnold v. Hayslett, 655 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1983); Marley v. Kirby, 271 S.C. 122 , 245 S.E.2d 604 (1978); Miller v. Miller, 273 N.C. 228 , 160 S.E.2d 65 (1968); Allman v. Beam, 272 Ala. 110 , 130 So.2d 194 (1961); Watson v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 199 Va. 570 , 100 S.E.2d 774 (1957). [4] Compare Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152 , 646 P.2d 579 (Ct.App.) (abolishing joint and several liability because of its inconsistency with New Mexico's pure comparative negligence system), cert. d 1987Harrison v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 295 Md. 442 , 456 A.2d 894 (1983); Arnold v. Hayslett, 655 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1983); Marley v. Kirby, 271 S.C. 122 , 245 S.E.2d 604 (1978); Miller v. Miller, 273 N.C. 228 , 160 S.E.2d 65 (1968); Allman v. Beam, 272 Ala. 110 , 130 So.2d 194 (1961); Watson v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 199 Va. 570 , 100 S.E.2d 774 (1957). [4] Compare Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152 , 646 P.2d 579 (Ct.App.) (abolishing joint and several liability because of its inconsistency with New Mexico's pure comparative negligence system), cert. d | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Miller v. Miller green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Woods v. Withrow green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Sindell green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.