WILLIAM PEARSON APPELLANT,
v.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., APPELLEE
WILLIAM PEARSON APPELLANT,
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., APPELLEE
751 So. 2d 125
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2000)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Clement v. Rousselle Corp., 372 So. 2d 1156, 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)(“A defendant who has answered with a general denial, is entitled to prove, and to argue to the jury, that the accident was due solely to the negligence of a person not party to the suit.”), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1191 (Fla.1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vila v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 215 So. 3d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…) (“A defendant who has [*86] answered with a general denial, is entitled to prove, and to argue to the jury, that the accident was due solely to the negligence of a person not party to the suit.”); see also Pearson v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 751 So. 2d 125, 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (affirming the order under review by relying on the above quoted statement from Clements). As an “empty chair” defense is not truly an affirmative defense, it does not have to be pled in the defendant’s affirmative defenses.…
Authorities Cited
- Darthy Ann Clement v. Rousselle Corp., 372 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)