Negligence -
[1]
Elements and Case Citations
(1) Defendant owed a duty to plaintiff to protect
the plaintiff from a particular injury or damage;
(2) Defendant breached this duty;
(3) Defendant’s breach was the proximate cause of injury or damage to
plaintiff; and
(4) Plaintiff suffered damages caused by the breach.
____________________________________
Florida State Courts
Supreme Court: Fla. Dep't of Corrections v. Abril, 969 So. 2d 201, 204 (Fla. 2007)
First District: Jenkins v. W.L. Roberts, Inc., 851 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
Second District: Vincent v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 944 So.2d 1083, 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
Third District: Florida Power and Light Co. v. Lively, 465 So. 2d 1270, 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
Fourth District: Horton v. Freeman, 917 So. 2d 1064, 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
Fifth District: Kaplan v. Morse, 870 So.2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
Florida Federal Courts
Eleventh Circuit: Miles v. Naval Aviation Museum Foundation, Inc., 289 F.3d 715, 722 (11th Cir. 2002)
Southern District: John Morrell & Co. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 534 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1350 (S.D. Fla. 2008)
Middle District: Williams v. Nat'l Freight, Inc., 455 F. Supp. 2d 1335, 1337 (M.D. Fla. 2006)
Northern District: Feraci v. Grundy Marine Const. Co., 2004 WL 895889 (N.D. Fla. 2003)
Florida Statutes
§ 768.041 et seq., Fla. Stat.
References
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 281 (1965)
[2] Defenses to Claim
for Negligence
(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other
standard defenses. See § 60.
(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (four years).
(3) The statute of repose bars product liability actions based on harm
``allegedly caused by a product with an expected useful life of 10 years or less, if the harm was caused by exposure to or use of the product more
than 12 years after delivery of the product to its first purchaser or lessee who was not engaged in the business of selling or leasing the product or
of using the product as a component in the manufacture of another product’’, unless the product is specifically exempted as having a useful life
greater than 10 years. § 95.031(2)(b), Fla. Stat.
(4) Plaintiff’s contributory negligence serves to diminish the recovery of
damages through principles of comparative negligence, by apportioning defendant’s degree of negligence against that of the plaintiff. Hoffman
v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431, 436 (Fla. 1973); see also § 768.81, Fla. Stat.
(5) Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from an intervening, superseding cause.
See Townsend v. West Side Dodge Inc., 642 So. 2d 49, 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 651 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1995); see also, Restatement
(Second) of Torts §§ 440, 441 (1965).
(6) Assumption of the risk will diminish the plaintiff’s recovery through
comparative negligence. Blackburn v. Dorta, 348 So. 2d 287, 298 (Fla. 1977); see also, Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 496 (1965).
(7) Good Samaritans are immune from civil liability. § 768.13, Fla. Stat.
(8) Military contractors are saved from liability when the contractor (a) had
no or minimal input in the design of the product or warned the military of the product’s risks and notified the military of alternative designs then
reasonably known by the contractor, and (b) the military authorized the contractor to proceed despite the product’s dangerous design. Dorse v.
Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 513 So. 2d 1265, 1269 (Fla. 1987).
(9) Product misuse will diminish the plaintiff’s recovery through comparative
negligence. See Standard Havens Products, Inc. v. Benitez, 648 So. 2d 1192, 1197 (Fla. 1994).
(10) Execution of a valid release is an absolute bar to liability. See
Bruce v. Heiman, 392 So. 2d 1026, 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
(11) Patent danger, also known as the ``open and obvious hazard doctrine’’
is an absolute bar to liability when plaintiff’s negligence claim is premised on failure to warn, and otherwise serves as a defense to reduce the
defendant’s liability through principles of comparative negligence when plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. E.g.,
Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d 1480, 1486-1487 (11th Cir. 1994).
(12) Consent is a defense to negligence claims. Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 892 (1965).
(13) Statutory Negligence requires showing that plaintiff (a) is a member of
class for which protection was intended, (b) suffered an injury which the statute was designed to prevent and (c) violation of the statute proximately
caused the injury. DeJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 281 So. 2d 198, 201 (Fla. 1973).
(14) The economic loss rule bars tort claims in product liability actions
where a contract exists and only the product is damaged. See Comptech International, Inc. v. Milam Commerce Park, Ltd., 753 So. 2d 1219 (Fla.
1999) (explaining Florida’s economic loss rule).
