Florida Ass'n of Workers for the Blind, Inc. v. Guillaume
| Decision Date | 06 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1491,92-1491 |
| Citation | 618 So.2d 275 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D896 The FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF WORKERS FOR THE BLIND, INC., d/b/a Lighthouse for the Blind, Appellant, v. Margareth GUILLAUME, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
George, Hartz, Lundeen, Flagg & Fulmer, Coral Gables, Hicks, Anderson & Blum and Bambi Blum, Miami, for appellant.
Levine & Finger and Dave Finger, Miami, for appellee.
Before HUBBART, BASKIN and LEVY, JJ.
We affirm the order awarding plaintiff a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court properly determined that defendant presented no evidence of comparative negligence and that the issue should not have been submitted to the jury.
In its order the trial court found:
1) Having alleged comparative negligence as an affirmative defense, the Defendant bore the burden of proving said comparative negligence.
2) The Defendant presented no evidence tending to prove comparative negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. That is to say, Defendant presented no evidence that Plaintiff breached her own duty of care to herself and that such breach was the proximate cause of the damages Plaintiff sustained.
3) Since no evidence existed tending to prove comparative negligence, the issue of comparative negligence should not have been submitted to the jury.
4) Plaintiff's objection to the submission to the jury of a comparative negligence verdict form was timely and put the Court on notice of Plaintiff's objection to the issue of comparative negligence therein preserving this issue for review.
5) Inasmuch as the Court finds that Defendant presented no evidence of comparative negligence, the Court finds that reasonable persons could come to but one conclusion and that the issue of comparative negligence becomes a question of law and should not have been submitted to the jury.
It is well-settled law that "where there is no evidence tending to prove comparative negligence, the issue should not be submitted to the jury." Coulter v. American Bakeries Co., 530 So.2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Cuadros v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 604 So.2d 861, 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Borenstein v. Raskin, 401 So.2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In this case, there was no evidence that Plaintiff was negligent. Thus, it was error to submit the issue to the jury; affirmance is required.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacobs v. Westgate
...to prove a plaintiff's comparative negligence, the issue should be taken from the jury. See Florida Ass'n of Workers for the Blind, Inc. v. Guillaume, 618 So.2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Regarding the issue of the defendants' negligent care of Jacobs' property, the record reflects that the ev......
-
Woodard v. ARMENIAN CULT. ASSOC. OF AMER.
...tending to prove comparative negligence, the issue should not be submitted to the jury.'" Florida Ass'n of Workers for the Blind, Inc. v. Guillaume, 618 So.2d 275, 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(quoting Coulter v. American Bakeries Co., 530 So.2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)); see also Cuadros v.......
-
Wallent v. Florida Power Corp.
...So.2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So.2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); see also Fla. Ass'n of Workers for the Blind, Inc. v. Guillaume, 618 So.2d 275, 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). This was a case in which a directed verdict was required, and the trial court should reenter judgmen......
-
TERRY PLUMBING & HOME SERVICES v. Berry
...for Directed Verdict when there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's comparative negligence. Fla. Ass'n of Workers for the Blind, Inc. v. Guillaume, 618 So.2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). However, a Motion for Directed Verdict should be treated with special caution because it is the functio......