The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . Harris's comparative fault pursuant to § 768.81(3), Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . Schoeff, 178 So.3d at 495-96 (interpreting section 768.81 to require apportionment of comparative fault . . . in a tobacco case because at its core it is a product liability action, and concluding "that section 768.81 . . .
. . . Therefore, the question remains: which version of section 768.81, applies-the statute passed and effective . . . party's percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability." § 768.81 . . . In 2011, the legislature amended section 768.81 to include new statutory language that related in part . . . The enacting legislation for the 2011 amendment to section 768.81 stated that the act was retroactive . . . Section 3 clearly applies to the entire statute, section 768.81. . . .
. . . claim are not subject to apportionment under Florida's comparative fault statute, Florida Statute § 768.81 . . . First, Defendants argue that the Florida comparative fault statute, Florida Statute § 768.81, required . . . Stat. § 768.81(2). . . . Stat. § 768.81(4). . . . So, taken by itself, § 768.81 does not permit apportionment here. B. . . .
. . . . § 768.81(3), Fla. Stat. (2011). . . . in the statute, preventing application of the statute to actions "based upon an intentional tort." § 768.81 . . . verdict form as a Fabre defendant because Martin's conduct did not fall within the exception to section 768.81 . . . Navas also relies on the Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 449, a position that ignores section 768.81 . . .
. . . inability to provide verdicts on other theories or on comparative-fault percentages was not critical, see § 768.81 . . .
. . . . § 768.81(3)(a). . . .
. . . . § 768.81, mandates comparative-fault reduction in negligence and products-liability actions but does . . . Id. § 768.81(3) - (4) (emphasis added). . . .
. . . is support for giving a special instruction explaining to the jury the impact and effect of an F.S. 768.81 . . . There is support for giving a special instruction explaining to the jury the impact and effect of F.S. 768.81 . . .
. . . Stat. § 768.81(2) (2011). . . . Id. § 768.81(1)(c). . . . Id. § 768.81(1)(d). . . . Id. § 768.81(4). . . . . § 768.81(1)(c) and (d). . . .
. . . See § 768.81(3)(a)l. . . . See § 768.81(4), Fla. Stat. (2001, 2006). . . . Before 2011, section 768.81 used the terms "case” and "action" interchangeably. . . . E.g., § 768.81, Fla. . . . See generally § 768.81, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . . fault statute reduces 'defendants’ liability by the percentage of fáiilt of other culpable parties. § 768.81 . . . Id. § 768.81(l)(c). . . . Id. § 768.81(4). . . . “action[s] based upon an intentional tort” in violation of the intentional tort exception, section 768.81 . . . party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability. § 768.81 . . . substantively the same under both the 1992 and 2011 versions of the statute, Majority op. at 801; see § 768.81 . . .
. . . However, courts apply a de novo standard when considering the apportionment of damages under section 768.81 . . . that fraudulent concealment was an intentional tort, and comparative fault was barred under section 768.81 . . . This court held, “Section 768.81 does not permit the reduction of compensatory damages by plaintiffs . . . We stated that “section 768.81 cannot be avoided simply because the action includes an intentional tort . . .
. . . For this proposition, Plaintiff relies upon section 768.81, Florida Statutes (2016), entitled "Comparative . . . denied Defendants’ request because at its core this was an “action based . upon an intentional tort.” § 768.81 . . .
. . . Sury, 118 So.3d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), that apportionment of fault is not required by section 768.81 . . .
. . . Ch. 2011-215 § 1, Laws of Florida (codified at § 768.81(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011)). . . . See, e.g., Caccavella, 814 So.2d at 1149 (holding § 768.81, Fla. . . . And, the Legislature did not change this rule when it adopted section 768.81, Florida Statutes. . . . See generally § 768.81(2)-(3), Fla. Stat. (2015). . . . .
. . . At issue is whether the comparative fault statute, section 768.81, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), requires . . . First, we note that the Boatrights’ counsel did not waive the argument that section 768.81 does not apply . . . Second, we address the merits of the Boatrights’ argument and agree that section 768.81 is inapplicable . . . liability, and product liability. § 768.81(4)(a). . . . The statute explicitly does not apply to “any action based upon an intentional tort.” § 768.81(4)(b). . . .
. . . . § 768.81(3). . . .
. . . The court’s refusal was based on its finding that section 768.81(4), Florida Statutes, (2013) barred . . .
. . . In D’Angelo, 863 So.2d at 314, the supreme court recognized that prior to the enactment of section 768.81 . . . But in 1997, Florida enacted section 768.81(3), which read as follows: APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES.— In . . . However, in 2006, the Florida Legislature amended section 768.81(3) and specifically deleted the provision . . . party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.” § 768.81 . . . 411, 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (recognizing that joint and several liability was eliminated in section 768.81 . . .
. . . Sections 768.81(2) and (4), Florida Statutes (1992), provide, in part, that in “negligence cases,” the . . . injury attributable to the claimant’s contributory .fault,” however, it does not prevent recovery. § 768.81 . . . Id. § 768.81(4)(a). . . . Id. § 768.81(4)(b). . . . substance of the action to determine if the claims were grounded in negligence as required by section 768.81 . . .
. . . In Grobman, we held that “section 768.81 [the statute interpreted in Fabre ] does not require the apportionment . . .
. . . Section 768.71(1), provides that sections 768.71 through 768.81, Florida Statutes, are applicable to . . .
. . . . § 768.81. See also Latimer v. . . .
. . . . § 768.81(3). . . .
. . . . § 768.81(3). . . .
. . . Sections 768.81(2) and (4), Florida Statutes (1994), provide, in pertinent part, that in “negligence . . . Section 768.81 does not permit the reduction of compensatory damages by plaintiffs comparative fault . . . See § 768.81(4)(b) Fla. . . . Considering the interplay between section 768.81 and an Engle progeny suit alleging causes of actions . . . Courts generally have held that the applicable version of section 768.81 is the version in effect at . . .
. . . . § 768.81(3). . . . See id. § 768.81(4); Meyer v. Thompson, 861 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2003). . . .
. . . AND “ENHANCED INJURY” CLAIMS (RESERVED) NOTES ON USE FOR 403.16 In 2011, the legislature amended F.S. 768.81 . . . NOTE ON USE FOR 403.18e See F.S. 768.81; Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993). . . .
. . . Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993); see also § 768.81(3), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .
. . . that because the jury found Reynolds committed the intentional tort of fraudulent concealment, section 768.81 . . . because Reynolds committed an intentional tort, and thus Florida’s comparative fault statute, section 768.81 . . . Hiott relies on this court’s decision in Sury, where we held that section 768.81(4)(b), Florida Statutes . . . disregard the jury’s comparative fault finding and decline to reduce the damages award under section 768.81 . . . We think the rationale of Foreline on this point is not dependent on section 768.81, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . reach the merits of plaintiff's argument that reduction of the compensatory damages pursuant to section 768.81 . . .
. . . . § 768.81(1)(c); see West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80, 92 (Fla.1976). . . . Stat. § 768.81. . . . Fla Stat. § 768.81(2, 3) (emphasis added). . . .
. . . contribution arguing that claims for contribution have become obsolete as a result of Florida Statute, section 768.81 . . . Section 768.81(3) states that “In a negligence action, the court shall enter judgment against each party . . . Miami-Dade County responds that section 768.81(3) does not apply to the instant action because it is . . . Consequently, section 768.81(3) does not apply. . . .
. . . reach the merits of plaintiff’s argument that reduction of the compensatory damages pursuant to section 768.81 . . .
. . . . § 768.81(3). . . .
. . . . § 768.81(3). . . .
. . . Inc., 11 So.3d 411, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“The jury would determine the same issues under section 768.81 . . .
. . . Doud, 485 So.2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and concluded that section 768.81, Florida Statutes, did not . . . Applying the law to the facts found by the jury, the trial court properly ruled that section 768.81, . . . Section 768.81(2), Florida Statutes provides: In a negligence action, contributory fault chargeable to . . . The question in this case is whether section 768.81 requires reduction of the damages awarded when the . . . McDonald, 705 So.2d 560, 562 (Fla.1997), the public policy behind the exclusion in section 768.81 for . . .
. . . . § 768.81, means Chiquita could only be liable for its own actions, not for the actions of GTC, Ajax . . .
. . . NOTE ON USE FOR 401.22Í See F.S. 768.81 (1993); Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993). . . . is support for giving a special instruction explaining to the jury the impact and effect of an F.S. 768.81 . . . There is support for giving a special instruction explaining to the jury the impact and effect of F.S. 768.81 . . .
. . . Fabre defendant who was the co-defendant who had just been dismissed from the suit, saying “[sjection 768.81 . . . The Statutory Requirement of Section 768.81 That Reduces Mr. . . . Section 768.81(3) is the guide to setting the parameters of Mr. Claudio’s responsibility for Mr. . . . But the district court went on to explain that because section 768.20 had priority over section 768.81 . . . Section 768.81 controlled as between Metro-Dade and the aunt in relation to the father’s award, because . . .
. . . accrues; except that an action for contribution must be commenced within the limitations provided in s. 768.81 . . .
. . . .”); see also § 768.81(3)(a), Fla. . . . See § 768.81(2), Fla. Stat. . . . See § 768.81(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . See § 768.81(2), (3), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . See § 768.81(4)(a), Fla. . . .
. . . . § 768.81(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). R.J. . . .
. . . See § 768.81(3)-(4), Fla. Stat. (1993). . . .
. . . Section 768.81, Florida Statutes (2007), provides for comparative fault and apportionment of damages . . . by a preponderance of the evidence, the fault of the nonparty in causing the plaintiffs injuries. § 768.81 . . .
. . . The court agreed with the tire manufacturer that the 2006 amendments to section 768.81, Florida Statutes . . . Anderson does not address section 768.81 and the 2006 amendments. . . . Town & Country Builders, Inc., 35 So.3d 79, 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), which does not address section 768.81 . . .
. . . Stat. § 768.81 The Supreme Court of Florida has held that the comparative fault statute, Fla. . . . Stat. 768.81(3)(a); see also Nash, 678 So.2d at 1264. . . . Stat. § 768.81(4)(a) explains that the statute applies to “negligence cases.” . . . Stat. § 768.81(4)(a) (emphasis added). . . . Stat. § 768.81(4)(b) for such intentional torts. 2. . . .
. . . Section 768.81, Florida Statutes (2005), provides in pertinent part, that “[i]n order to allocate any . . . by a preponderance of the evidence, the fault of the nonparty in causing the plaintiffs injuries.” § 768.81 . . . Prior to trial, Witt amended its affirmative defenses to allege contribution by ITT pursuant to section 768.81 . . .
. . . “The enactment of section 768.81, Florida Statutes, represented a policy shift in the State of Florida . . . Faber, 745 So.2d 968, 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); § 768.81(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .
. . . NOTE ON USE FOR 401.22f See F.S. 768.81 (1993); Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993). . . . NOTE ON USE FOR 402.14e See F.S. 768.81 (1993); Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993). . . . (Fla.1997), the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of comparative negligence, as codified in F.S. 768.81 . . . For example, see F.S. 768.81(4)(a) defining “negligence cases.” 4. . . . is support for giving a special instruction explaining to the jury the impact and effect of an F.S. 768.81 . . .
. . . Under the applicable version of the joint and several liability statute, section 768.81, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . 334, 338 (Fla.1997) (“comparative fault principles shall apply in negligence cases”) (citing Section 768.81 . . . As one court has noted, Florida’s law of comparative fault as codified in section 768.81, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . fault, none of the defendants were jointly and severally liable for the damages, pursuant to section 768.81 . . .
. . . . § 768.81. . . .
. . . Section 768.81, the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, was in effect at the time of the trial . . . party’s percentage of fault “and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.” § 768.81 . . . evidence would presumably be the same whether presented in this case under the provisions of section 768.81 . . . The jury would determine the same issues under section 768.81(3) as it would in a third-party action, . . . cited in this opinion may not have been overruled by the enactment of the current version of section 768.81 . . .
. . . Fabre, 623 So.2d at 1185-87 (“[Section 768.81 [of the Florida Statutes] was enacted to replace joint . . . That ruling was thereafter codified by statute in section 768.81(3) of the Florida Statutes. . . . Later, in Fabre, the Florida Supreme Court interpreted section 768.81(3) as dispensing with the concept . . . In turn, the legislature codified this interpretation of Section 768.81(3). . . . In its current form, section 768.81(3) reads as follows: (3) Apportionment of damages. — In cases to . . .
. . . is based on the same principle as Florida’s comparative fault statute, which is codified at section 768.81 . . . Compare § 768.81(3), Fla. . . .
. . . Section 768.81 of the Florida Statutes (2007), sets forth Florida’s comparative fault statute. . . . However, the Legislature’s enactment of section 768.81 represented a policy shift away from joint and . . . Hennis contends that the trial court erred in applying section 768.81 in this case in order to apportion . . . Stat. § 768.81 (2001); Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182, 1185-86 (Fla.1993). . . . The plain language of section 768.81 of the Florida Statutes states that the apportionment provisions . . .
. . . The comparative fault statute, section 768.81, Florida Statutes, provides for apportionment of fault . . . However, the statute contains an exception “to any action based upon an intentional tort.” § 768.81(4 . . . Thus, section 768.81 did not apply and the intentional tortfeasor was properly excluded from the verdict . . .
. . . turns on whether [the HMO] was a party defendant to which the apportionment requirement of section 768.81 . . . If section 768.81(3) did not apply, then ... the failure to include it on the verdict form had no legal . . . We went on to explain that: “To decide whether section 768.81 applies requires more than determining . . . One must examine the cause of action asserted against a settling defendant to determine if section 768.81 . . . We further noted that section 768.81 requires apportionment of non-economic damages in cases involving . . .
. . . . § 768.81(3) between the culpable Naval personnel (for which it admitted responsibility) and Dr. . . . Stat. § 768.81(3) to apportion the damages among the joint tortfeasors; and (3) not further reducing . . . Stat. § 768.81(3) applied, making all of the defendants jointly and severally liable for the entire damage . . . Because we agree with that alternative ruling we need not address the § 768.81(3) issues. . . . Stat. § 768.81(3). . . .
. . . Bland under section 768.81, Florida Statutes (2001). . . . transporting this large engine was inherently dangerous and that the fault of the hauler under section 768.81 . . . We are not aware of any case that has extended the holding in American Home to apply section 768.81 to . . . the argument presented by the Defendants, we have some doubt that the legislature intended section 768.81 . . . Section 768.81(2) does not reference vicarious liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine . . .
. . . Such instruction was directly contrary to section 768.81(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), which provided . . .
. . . . § 768.81(3). . In Bonner v. . . .
. . . . § 768.81(4)(a)(2006). . . . STAT. § 768.81(2). See, e.g., In re Fuzion Techs. . . .
. . . . § 768.81(2), Fla. Stat. (2001); see Y.H. Inv., Inc. v. . . . Godales, 690 So.2d 1273, 1277 (Fla.1997) (construing section 768.81, Florida Statutes, as “a legislative . . .
. . . See § 768.81(3)(d) and (e), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .
. . . See § 768.81(3)(d), Fla. . . . Section 768.81(3)(d) of the Florida Statutes requires a defendant seeking to impute fault to a negligent . . . non-party to plead such a defense. § 768.81(3)(d), Fla. . . .
. . . In order to include a nonparty, such as this agent, on the verdict form under section 768.81(3), Florida . . .
. . . In 1986, the Legislature enacted section 768.81, the comparative fault statute. . . . In 1999, the Legislature amended section 768.81 to provide joint and several liability for economic damages . . . However, this court has held the 1999 amendment to section 768.81 is prospective only and may not be . . . The 1997 version of section 768.81, in effect at the time of the accident in this case, apportioned damages . . .
. . . We have considered sections 46.015(2), 768.041(2), and 768.81, Florida Statutes, applicable to damage . . .
. . . Fault cannot be divided into percentages as contemplated in Willis Shaw, section 768.81 or rule 1.442 . . .
. . . App.1992), or the application of section 768.81, Florida Statutes (2002), to this action. . . .
. . . Stat. ch. 768.81 applied and limited its recovery to 41% of its proven damages. . . . Stat. ch. 768.81, in determining that its recovery was limited to 41% of its proven damages. . . . Stat. ch. 768.81(2) (emphasis added), the court determined that the statute “must be read to include . . . Stat. ch. 768.81 was properly applied to limit AHA’s recovery to 41% of its proven damages, the district . . . Stat. ch. 768.81, the Florida comparative fault statute. . . .
. . . FIGA also asserted that damages against the Association were only available as permitted by section 768.81 . . .
. . . Section 768.81, Florida Statutes, codified the holding of Hoffman v. Jones. . . . . § 768.81(2)-(3), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . Section 768.81 was enacted as part of the comprehensive Tort Reform and Insurance Act of 1986. . . . The First District concluded that the Legislature did not intend for the language in section 768.81 to . . . Our conclusion that section 768.81 applies to vicariously liable parties as well as active tortfeasors . . .
. . . Indemnity and D & H cross-appeal the trial court’s application of the comparative fault statute section 768.81 . . . Stat. § 768.81 (2001); Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182, 1185-86 (Fla.1993). . . . This interpretation is inconsistent with Section 768.81, which the trial court properly applied in this . . . that the trial judge miscalculated the amount of damages under § 768.81(3)(a). . . . See § 768.81(3)(a)(3). . . .
. . . that there can be apportionment of fault against them for noneco-nomic damages pursuant to section 768.81 . . .
. . . The plain language of section 768.81, Florida Statutes, requires that a plaintiffs percentage of contributory . . . negligence . action be subtracted from the amount of economic damages determined by the jury, see § 768.81 . . . See § 768.81(3), Fla.. Stat. . . .
. . . McDonald, 705 So.2d 560 (Fla.1997), for the proposition that section 768.81, Florida Statutes, the comparative . . .
. . . Finally, the defendants also argued that the jury should have apportioned fault under section 768.81, . . .
. . . . § 768.81 (2004). . . .
. . . Stat. (2003); § 768.81(3)(6), Fla. Stat. (1991); Osler v. . . .
. . . recently noted ,that: ■ Florida law regarding setoffs is found in sections 46.015(2), 768.041(2), and 768.81 . . .
. . . . § 768.81(3)(e). . . . Ann. § 768.81(3)(e) and Fabre v. . . .
. . . Basel appealed, arguing that the trial court applied the wrong version of section 768.81, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . Section 768.81(2), Florida Statutes (2003), addresses comparative negligence and provides: (2) EFFECT . . . A plain reading of section 768.81(2) is that “the amount awarded as economic and noneconomic damages” . . .
. . . In such a case, where the retailer’s liability is not based on fault, section 768.81(3), Florida Statutes . . .
. . . Section 768.81, Florida Statutes (1999), deals with apportionment of damages, and in cases to which this . . .
. . . In Wells, the supreme court reviewed the apportionment of damages statutes, section 768.81(3), Florida . . . Recognizing that under section 768.81(3), each defendant is solely, not jointly, responsible for his . . .
. . . In such a case, where the retailer’s liability is not based on fault, section 768.81(3), Florida Statutes . . .
. . . verdict ($26,917,000) ruling that allocation of damages for comparative negligence pursuant to section 768.81 . . .
. . . See § 768.81 Fla. Stat. (2002). . . .
. . . Crucial to the trilogy of section 768.81 settlement cases is the assumption that section 768.81(3) applies . . . Section 768.81 “applies to negligence cases, including professional malpractice cases.” . . . .; see § 768.81(4), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . Thus, there can be no “fault” within the meaning of section 768.81(3). . . . (3), the trilogy of section 768.81 settlement cases ending with D’Angelo does not control. . . .
. . . Florida Statute § 768.81(2) details the effect of contributory fault. . . .
. . . Section 768.81(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2002) defines comparative fault and sets forth when the issue . . .
. . . In 1986, the Legislature enacted section 768.81, the comparative fault statute. . . . In 1999, the Legislature amended section 768.81 to provide joint and several liability for economic damages . . . However, this court has held the 1999 amendment to section 768.81 is prospective only and may not be . . . The 1997 version of section 768.81, in effect at the time of the accident in this case, apportioned damages . . .
. . . After these statutes were first enacted, the Legislature enacted section 768.81, Florida Statutes (1997 . . . Section 768.81(4) expressly provides that the statute applies to negligence cases, including professional . . . APPLICATION OF LAW 1.Applicability of Section 768.81, Florida Statutes D’Angelo argues that section 768.81 . . . Section 768.81(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), states: “This section applies to negligence cases.” . . . Section 768.81(3) was amended in 1999; however, the applicable version is that which was in effect when . . .
. . . Addressing apportionment of liability, section 768.81 provides that “the court shall enter judgment against . . . party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.” § 768.81 . . . In Fabre, the supreme court construed section 768.81 and wrote: “Clearly, the only means of determining . . . necessary for a jury to receive jury instructions and a verdict form to decide the case pursuant to section 768.81 . . . necessary for a jury to receive jury instructions and a verdict form to decide the case pursuant to section 768.81 . . .