Issen v. Lincenberg, 74--135
| Citation | 293 So.2d 777 |
| Decision Date | 26 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--135,74--135 |
| Parties | Minnie ISSEN, Plaintiff, v. Harry LINCENBERG, Defendants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Whitman, Wolfe & Heckerling, Miami, for plaintiff.
Kuvin, Klingensmith & Coon, Miami, for Rhodes, Weinstein & Bavly, for Lincenberg, defendants.
Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Miami, for Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.
Before CARROLL, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
On July 16, 1972, one Minnie Issen suffered personal injuries in an automobile accident. She was a passenger in a car driven by Harry Lincenberg, involved in a collision with one driven by Ronald Rhodes, owned by Elinor Rhodes.
Minnie Issen filed this action for damages against Lincenberg and the Rhodes. The plaintiff was not guilty of negligence, and it was established at the trial that the negligence of each of the defendant drivers was a contributing legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries. In answer to special interrogatories submitted by the court, the jury found that of the negligence of the two drivers, Lincenberg's represented 15% And that of Rhodes was 85%, and the jury fixed $20,000 as the amount of damages which the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Being uncertain as to whether the judgment to be entered in favor of the plaintiff should be charged against the defendants in the percentages above stated, or in full against the several defendants, the trial court certified to this court (under Rule 4.6 FAR, 32 F.S.A.) the following question:
'Where the plaintiff, in an automobile injury accident case sues two defendants, alleging both to be negligent resulting in injuries to the plaintiff, is it proper for the trial judge to allow the jury to apportion fault as it sees fit between the negligent defendants, therefore, was it proper in a case wherein the plaintiff sued two defendants, alleging each negligently operated to instruct the jury to apportion fault and submit the foregoing special interrogatories to the jury?'
Upon consideration of the question, with benefit of briefs filed by the defendants and an amicus curiae, we hold the certified question should be and it hereby is answered in the negative.
The doctrine of comparative negligence (Hoffman v. Jones, Fla.1973, 280 So.2d 431) is not applicable between defendant joint tort-feasors. The doctrine is one which is applied between a damage claimant and a defendant (or defendants), that ism in an action where negligence of a plaintiff, on the one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood
...The district court of appeal held that the jury should not have been asked to apportion fault between the defendants. Issen v. Lincenberg, 293 So.2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). On review, this Court concluded that the rationale of Hoffman v. Jones dictated the elimination of the rule against co......
-
Lincenberg v. Issen
...to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Issen v. Lincenberg, Rhodes and Rhodes, reported at 293 So.2d 777 (Fla.App.1974), which conflicts with this Court's decision in Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, ......
-
Polyard v. Terry
...plaintiff is not guilty of any 'contributory' negligence the doctrine of comparative negligence is not involved. See Issen v. Lincenberg, 293 So.2d 777, 778 (Fla.App.1974). The apparent requirement for such findings in N.J.S.A. 59:9--4(b) (modelled after N.J.S.A. 2A:15--5.2(b) 5 is superflu......
-
Maybarduk v. Bustamante
...of no contribution among joint tort-feasors. Two recent decisions from the Third District support that proposition. Issen v. Lincenberg, Fla.App.1974, 293 So.2d 777, opinion filed March 26, 1974; Rader v. Variety Children's Hospital, Fla.App., 293 So.2d 778 opinion filed April 2, 1974; cf. ......