Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Fox
| Decision Date | 26 August 1993 |
| Docket Number | INC,No. 80181,ALLIED-SIGNA,80181 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. S455 , etc., Appellant, v. Kevin FOX, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Kathleen M. O'Connor of Thornton, David, Murray, Richard & Davis, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
G. William Bissett of Hardy & Bissett, P.A., Miami, for appellee.
Marguerite H. Davis of Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Davis & Marks, P.A., Tallahassee, amicus curiae for American Ins. Ass'n.
Joel D. Eaton of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin & Perwin, P.A., Miami, amicus curiae for the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
Sharon Lee Stedman of De Ciccio & Associates, P.A., Orlando, amicus curiae for the Florida Defense Lawyers Ass'n.
Pursuant to section 25.031, Florida Statutes (1987), and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.150, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has certified to this Court a question concerning the interpretation of section 768.81(3), Florida Statutes (1989). Fox v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 966 F.2d 626 (11th Cir.1992). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(6) of the Florida Constitution.
The federal appeals court outlined the circumstances giving rise to certification as follows:
On March 9th, 1990, plaintiff-appellee Kevin Fox was working for Eastern Airlines as a technician performing maintenance and overhaul on the electrical systems of airplanes. Fox was servicing an aircraft fan, Allied fan model 73 FA18, when his fingers were caught in the rotating blades of the fan. The fan did not have a safety screen at that particular moment. Allied's maintenance and service manual did not indicate that a safety screen or guard needed to be used over the fan while it was being serviced. Moreover, Eastern Airlines and its employee, Kevin Fox, failed to place a guard or screen over the fan. Eastern Airlines was nonetheless aware of the OSHA requirement that guarding be placed over rotating machines to protect operators from hazards, 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.212 (1991). Further, Eastern had established a system for using safety screens, it had instructed its employees on the use of such screens, and it had regularly scheduled maintenance programs to educate its employees on these procedures. Apparently, this accident occurred during a strike against Eastern, and Mr. Fox, as well as other employees, had only been engaged in this type of work for a short period of time. As "new hires," these individuals were given some training, but there is a serious question about its adequacy and what was in fact covered. Eastern Airlines was immune from suit pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act, Fla.Stat. Sec. 440.11.
As a result of the accident, Mr. Fox received permanent physical injuries: four fingers of his left hand were injured, two of which were amputated. He was able to return to work four months after the accident. Mr. Fox alleged that Allied was negligent in failing to instruct that the fan should be serviced with a safety screen, and in failing to warn of the fan's suction. The trial court denied Allied's request to allow the jury to consider and assess nonparty Eastern's percentage of fault, if any, under Florida's Tort Reform Act, Fla.Stat. Sec. 768.81 (1989). The court interpreted the statute to allow apportionment of fault only among the parties to the suit.
The jury found Allied to be seventy percent (70%) negligent and Mr. Fox thirty percent (30%) comparatively negligent. Mr. Fox was awarded a total amount of $350,000.00 in damages. Thus, the amended final judgment was $245,000.00. The district court denied Allied's motion for a new trial.
The court phrased the question for certification as follows:
WHETHER THE INTERPRETATION OF FLA.STAT. Sec. 768.81(3) (1989) REQUIRES CONSIDERATION BY THE JURY OF A NON-PARTY'S COMPARATIVE FAULT IN ORDER TO DETERMINE A PARTY'S LIABILITY?
Id. at 628. As a reason for the certification, the court noted the conflicting opinions on the subject in Messmer v. Teacher's Insurance Co., 588 So.2d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), review denied, 598 So.2d 77 (Fla.1992), and Fabre v. Marin, 597 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
On the authority of our decision in Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993), we answer the certified question in the affirmative. In Fabre we adopted the rationale of Messmer, holding that section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Corrections v. McGhee
...even if such person is not or cannot be a party to the lawsuit. See Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993); Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Fox, 623 So.2d 1180 (Fla.1993). As observed in Marin: "Clearly, the only means of determining a party's percentage of fault is to compare that party's percen......
-
American Aerial Lift, Inc. v. Perez
...1 There is no claim that the plaintiff's employer was guilty of any negligence in causing the accident. Compare Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Fox, 623 So.2d 1180 (Fla.1993); Schindler Corp. v. Ross, 625 So.2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).2 While we agree with the appellant that the jury charge on the sub......
-
In re Air Crash near Cali, Colombia On December 20, 1995
...extent to which the defendant's acts, as opposed to the acts of others, contributed to the injuries. See, e.g., Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Fox, 623 So.2d 1180, 1182 (Fla.1993); Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182, 1185-87 (Fla.1993). The cabin crew Plaintiffs do not dispute that, if American Airline......
-
Godales v. Y.H. Investments Inc.
...has allowed contribution even in light of an employer-employee relationship and a spousal relationship. Fabre, supra; Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Fox, 623 So.2d 1180 (Fla.1993). However, the doctrine of interspousal immunity had been abrogated by the time of the Allied-Signal decision. See Waite......
-
Apportionment of Damages: What We Know and What Remains Unsettled
...$100,000 and the defendant would overpay. [15] Barnett, 308 Ga. App. at 362, 707 S.E.2d at 573-74. [16] See Allied- Signal, Inc. v. Fox, 623 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1993) (Supreme Court of Florida holding that Florida's comparative fault scheme requires consideration of all potential tortfeasors ......