Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 769.03 (2025)
Recovery for injuries where employee and employer both at fault; damages; negligence of fellow servant.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
769.03 Recovery for injuries where employee and employer both at fault; damages; negligence of fellow servant.—The persons mentioned in s. 769.01 shall not be liable in damages for injuries to their agents and employees, or for the death of such agents and employees, where same is done by their consent, or is caused by their own negligence. If the employees or agents injured or killed, and the persons mentioned in s. 769.01, or their agents and employees are both at fault, there may be a recovery, but the amount of the recovery shall be such a proportion of the entire damages sustained, as the defendant’s negligence bears to the combined negligence of both the plaintiff and the defendant; provided, that damages shall not be recovered for injuries to an employee injured in part through his or her own negligence and in part through the negligence of another employee, when both of such employees are fellow servants, where the former and latter are jointly engaged in performing the act causing the injury and the employer is guilty of no negligence contributing to such injury.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1968–1999 · leading case: Ry. Express Agency, Inc. v. Fulmer, 227 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1969).
Ry. Express Agency, Inc. v. Fulmer, 227 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1969). “Under the Butler holding, plaintiff in the instant case would be unable to assign as error the trial court's omission of the last *872 half of F.S. § 769.03, F.S.A., from the charge to the jury.”
Howell v. Woods, 489 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). “In Fulmer , the supreme court had found fundamental error because the trial court had omitted from the charge, after agreeing to include the language of section 769.03, Florida Statutes, the hazardous occupations law, that portion of the section that discusses comparative…”
Kobel v. State, 745 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). “5th DCA 1981), which held that "the underlying purpose of section 769.03 ... appears to be to protect children from sexual exploitation for commercial purposes.”
Fulmer v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc., 215 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). “It appears that in a chambers discussion, the trial court admitted, in a discussion of charges, that contributory negligence would not be an absolute bar to recovery, but in giving his instructions to the jury, the judge gave only the first sentence of Section 769.03, Florida…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.