Department of Transp. v. Webb, s. VV-79

Decision Date17 November 1981
Docket NumberVV-103,Nos. VV-79,s. VV-79
Citation409 So.2d 1061
PartiesDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, et al., Appellants, v. Sheila WEBB, Linda Strong, et al., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

DuBose Ausley and William M. Smith of Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor, Tallahassee, for appellant Seaboard Coast Line.

H. Reynolds Sampson, Alan E. DeSerio and James W. Anderson, Tallahassee, for appellant Dept. of Transp.

Stanley B. Powell of Powell, Powell & Powell, Niceville, for appellees Webb and Strong.

Paul A. Bernardini of LaRue & Bernardini, Daytona Beach, and Cynthia S. Tunnicliff of Spector, Tunnicliff & McCord, Tallahassee, for appellee Grant.

L. Lee Williams, Jr., and Robert C. Apgar of Peeples, Earl, Smith, Moore & Blank, Tallahassee, for Florida Defense Lawyers' Ass'n, amicus curiae.

Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

Seven points on appeal involving contribution, statutory immunity, various evidentiary matters, the trial court's failure to instruct on punitive damages, and the viability of Florida's doctrine of joint and several liability are presented for our review of the verdict and judgments entered in this negligence action. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm.

Five students were riding to school in northern Leon County when their car collided with a Seaboard Coast Line train. The driver was killed, one passenger required amputation of both legs, and the other passengers were seriously injured. Passengers Webb and Strong filed a negligence action against SCL, locomotive engineer Williams, and the Department of Transportation which was responsible for planning and maintaining the crossing. SCL and Williams filed a third-party complaint for contribution and indemnity against the estate of Grant (the deceased driver), Herring (the owner of the automobile), and Maryland Casualty Company (Herring's insurer). The third-party complaint was answered by the driver's personal representative, on behalf of her children, who filed a counterclaim against SCL and a cross claim against DOT and Herring for the wrongful death of the driver. Before trial, the judge entered summary judgment in favor of Herring and Maryland Casualty on the contribution claim.

Also before trial, the judge denied a defense motion in limine which had been directed at excluding, among other things, evidence of prior accidents at the intersection and evidence that additional signals were planned before, but installed after, the accident. The judge additionally denied the plaintiffs' request for the standard jury instruction on punitive damages.

The jury found the driver 75% at fault, DOT 20%, Seaboard Coast Line 5%. Damages were assessed at $700,000 for Webb $10,000 for Strong, and $150,000 each for the driver's two children. Accordingly, the judge found DOT and SCL jointly and severally liable to the driver's children in the amount of $37,500 each ($150,000 reduced by 75%).

The judgments were further reduced pursuant to Section 768.041, Florida Statutes, because of settlement money the plaintiffs had received. Herring, Maryland Casualty and the driver had settled with Webb for a total of $13,000 and with Strong for a total of $1,000. Herring and Maryland Casualty had settled with the driver (on behalf of her children) in the amount of $2,000. To reflect these agreements, an amended final judgment was entered finding DOT and SCL jointly and severally liable to the driver's two children in the amount of $36,500 each, Webb $687,000 and Strong $9,000.

The bulk of the argument in this appeal concerns SCL's contention that the concept of joint and several liability in Florida has been, or should be, superseded by the doctrine of comparative negligence. We reject this notion because it misconceives comparative negligence theory. Comparative negligence, as defined in Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973), is a device designed to allow compensation for plaintiffs who may themselves be partly negligent, instead of eliminating their recovery altogether under the common law doctrine of contributory negligence. SCL and the amicus Florida Defense Lawyers' Association argue that because the Hoffman opinion permits juries to apportion damages according to the proportion of fault of each party, the concept of joint and several liability no longer has a place in Florida courts. However, this argument ignores Lincenberg v. Issen, 318 So.2d 386 (Fla.1975) and subsequent statutory developments. In Lincenberg, the court decided that the doctrine of comparative negligence was not incompatible with the 1975 version of the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act, Section 768.31, Florida Statutes (1975), which required that fault could not be the basis for determining a defendant's contribution. The present contribution statute provides that relative degrees of fault shall be the basis for determining contribution. Section 768.31(3)(a) Florida Statutes (1979).

Clearly, if the interplay between comparative negligence and the contribution statute was workable in 1975, it is even more workable now. We must reject the appellant's arguments that the law of comparative negligence requires a pure apportionment of damages. See Lincenbe...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Harrison v. Escambia County School Bd.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 1982
    ...400 So.2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); a decision not to install additional warning devices at a railroad crossing, Dept. of Transp. v. Webb, 409 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); a decision not to place signs on bridge, warning divers of reduced depth of water, caused by agency, once agency becam......
  • Board of Educ. of McDowell County v. Zando, Martin & Milstead, Inc.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • February 22, 1990
    ...Elbow Room, Inc. v. Kavorkian, 754 P.2d 243 (Alaska 1988); American Motorcycle Ass'n v. Superior Court, supra; Department of Transp. v. Webb, 409 So.2d 1061 (Fla.App.1981), modified on other grounds, 438 So.2d 780 (Fla.1983); Nobriga v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 67 Haw. 157, 683 P.2d 389 (......
  • Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 5, 1987
    ...Inc. v. Florida E. Coast Ry., 772 F.2d 750 (11th Cir.1985); Woods v. Withrow, 413 So.2d 1179 (Fla.1982); Department of Transportation v. Webb, 409 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), review denied, 419 So.2d 1200 (Fla.1982); Metropolitan Dade County v. Asusta, 359 So.2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); M......
  • Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Janssens
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 26, 1984
    ...the defendant's claimed lack of knowledge. Murray v. Almaden Vineyards, Inc., 429 So.2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Dept. of Transportation v. Webb, 409 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), approved, 438 So.2d 780 (Fla.1983); Hethcoat v. Chevron Oil Co., 383 So.2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). As we view ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Subsequent remedial measures: the misunderstood Rule of Evidence.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 72 No. 2, February 1998
    • February 1, 1998
    ...D.C.A. 1995); Brantley v. Snapper Power Equipment, 665 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1995). See also Department of Transportation v. Webb, 409 So. 2d 1061, 1063 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1982), modified, 438 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1983); Sikes v. Seaboard Coast Line Railway Co., 429 So. 2d at (14) The new ve......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT