RACHELLE M. STELLAS, PETITIONER,
v.
ALAMO RENT-A-CAR, INC., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court held that it was error to permit a nonparty intentional tortfeasor's name to appear on a verdict form in a negligence case to allow the jury to apportion fault between the intentional tortfeasor and the negligent defendant. The Court determined that Florida's comparative fault statute (section 768.81) does not apply when apportioning liability between an intentional tortfeasor and a negligent party.
It was error to permit both the nonparty intentional tortfeasor's name and the negligent defendant's name to appear on the verdict form. Florida's comparative fault statute (section 768.81) does not apply to apportion liability between an intentional tortfeasor and a negligent party.
[1] A statute abrogating joint and several liability for noneconomic damages and requiring apportionment of liability by percentage of fault does not apply to actions involvi…
[2] It is error to permit the name of a nonparty intentional tortfeasor to appear on a verdict form to apportion fault between the nonparty and a negligent tortfeasor in an a…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The court looked to section 768.81, Florida Statutes (1993), which abrogated joint and several liability as to noneconomic damages and requires courts to apportion liability in accord with percent of fault of each party.”
Establishes the statutory framework the lower court relied upon in permitting the intentional tortfeasor's name on the verdict form
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Stellases rented a car from Alamo Rent-a-Car in Orlando to be returned in Miami. While traveling to Miami, the Stellases' daughter took a wrong tu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Apportionment Of Fault cases and more on FLexlaw
HARDING, Justice.
We have for review a decision certifying as a question of great public importance the issue of whether it was error to permit a nonparty intentional tortfeasor’s name to appear on the verdict form so as to permit the jury to apportion fault between the nonparty and the negligent tortfeasor. Stellas v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 673 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The Stellases rented a car from Alamo Rent-a-Car in Orlando, to be returned in Miami. On the way to Miami, the Stellases’ daughter took a wrong turn off the expressway into a high crime area. While they were stopped, a man (who was later apprehended) smashed the passenger side window and struggled with Mrs. Stellas before taking her purse and fleeing.
The Stellases brought suit against Alamo on a claim of negligent failure to warn, claiming that the company should have known of the dangers of touring in certain areas of Miami with a bumper sticker saying “Alamo.” The Stellases argued that it was error to permit a nonparty intentional tortfeasor’s name (the assailant) to appear on the verdict form so that the jury could apportion fault between the assailant and the negligent tortfeasor (Alamo).
The court looked to section 768.81, Florida Statutes (1993), which abrogated joint and several liability as to noneconomic damages and requires courts to apportion liability in accord with percent of fault of each party. The district court concluded that it was not error to permit both names to appear on the form. The court disagreed with Slawson v. Fast Food Enterprises, 671 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 679 So. 2d 773 (1996), which reached the opposite conclusion.
We approved the reasoning of the Slawson court and decided this exact issue in Merrill Crossings Associates v. McDonald, No. 88,-324, - So. 2d -, 1997 WL 746290 (Fla. Dec. 4, 1997), where we held that section 768.81 does not apply to this type of action. Based on our analysis in that ease, we hold that it was error to permit both names to appear on the verdict form. We quash the decision of the district court of appeal and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, SHAW, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., and GRIMES, Senior Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D'Amario v. Ford Motor Co., 806 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2001)…o. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA) (holding that a non-party intentional tortfeasor should appear on the verdict form so as to permit the jury to apportion fault with the negligent tortfeasor), review granted, 683 So. 2d 485 (Fla.1996), and decision quashed by 702 So. 2d 232 (Fla.1997). Accordingly, the trial court found that the jury “had a right to know all the facts” concerning someone who appears on the verdict form. Nash, 734 So. 2d at 439. The jury ultimately found no liability on the part of the automobile manuf…1 / 3
-
Nash v. Gen. Motors Corp., 734 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…o. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA) (holding that a non-party intentional tortfeasor should appear on the verdict form so as to permit the jury to apportion fault with the negligent tortfeasor), review granted, 683 So. 2d 485 (Fla.1996), and decision quashed by 702 So. 2d 232 (Fla.1997). Accordingly, the trial court found that the jury “had a right to know all the facts” concerning someone who appears on the verdict form. At trial, General Motors presented Dr. Raddin as an expert to contest the origin of Ms. Nash’s head…1 / 2
-
Clark v. Polk Cnty., 753 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…gence, but one based on an intentional tort, to which section 768.81 does not apply. See also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Coker, 714 So. 2d 423 (Fla.1998) (involving suit for negligent failure to provide adequate security); Stellas v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, 702 So. 2d 232 (Fla.1997) (involving rental car company’s negligent failure to warn against driving rental car in dangerous neighborhood). The same cannot be said of the instant case. Here, the destruction of the stop sign was not the foreseeable result of any ne…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Slawson v. Fast Food Enters., 671 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Rachelle M. Stellas v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 673 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)