MINNIE ISSEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HARRY LINCENBERG, DEFENDANTS
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.
In this certified question appeal, the court clarifies that comparative negligence doctrine does not apply to apportion fault between joint tort-feasors (two negligent defendants). The plaintiff, injured in a car accident, sued two negligent drivers, and the trial court sought guidance on whether the jury could apportion fault percentages between them.
The court held that comparative negligence doctrine does not apply between defendant joint tort-feasors and answered the certified question in the negative. Under Florida law, there is no contribution between joint tort-feasors, and the plaintiff is entitled to full judgment against the defendants without apportionment by the jury.
[1] Comparative negligence does not apply between defendant joint tort-feasors.
[2] In Florida, there is generally no right of contribution between joint tort-feasors.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 doctrine of comparative negligence (Hoffman v. Jones, Fla.1973, 280 So. 2d 431) is not applicable between defendant joint tort-feasors.”
Establishes the core holding that comparative negligence does not apply to fault apportionment among multiple defendants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMinnie Issen was injured as a passenger in a car driven by Harry Lincenberg that collided with a vehicle driven by Ronald Rhodes and owned by Elinor R…
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
CARROLL, Judge.
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 is, in an action where negligence of a plaintiff, on the one hand, and negligence of a defendant (or defendants), on the other hand, have contributed to constitute legal cause of the plaintiff’s injury or loss.
In the law of Florida (subject to certain exceptions not applicable here) there is no contribution between joint tort-feasors.1 The Supreme Court appears to have recognized the continued existence of that rule notwithstanding adoption of the doctrine of comparative negligence, in Hoffman v. Jones, supra (208 So. 2d at 439).
Moreover, in this case where the plaintiff was not guilty of any negligence contributing to cause her injuries, the doctrine of comparative negligence was not involved. The plaintiff was entitled to judgment against the defendants for the damages awarded to her by the jury verdict.
The certified question having been answered, the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. American District Electric Protective Co., 106 Fla. 330, 143 So. 316; Kellenberger v. Widener, Fla. App.1963, 159 So. 2d 267; Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. J. C. Penney Co., Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 211; Aircraft Taxi Co. v. Perkins, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 722; Stembler v. Smith, Fla.App.1971, 242 So. 2d 472.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Lincenberg v. Issen, 318 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1975)…ROBERTS, Judge. This 'cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari 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, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Succinctly, the facts are as follows: Minnie Issen sued…
-
Maybarduk v. Bustamante, 294 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…e Supreme Court opinion that the comparative negligence rule was not intended to alter the concept 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. Comparative Negligence — Some Unanswered Questions, The Florida Bar Journal, Vol. 47, No. 9, October 1973. We find no faul…
-
Walt Disney World Co. v. Aloysia Wood, 515 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1987)…ch the jury determined that one defendant was 85% percent negligent and the other defendant was 15% negligent. 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 contribution among joint tortfeasors. The Court then said that since “ ‘no contribu [*200] tion’ is no longer a v…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Am. Dist. Elec. Protective Co., 106 Fla. 330 (Fla. 1932)
- Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. J. C. Penney Co., Inc., 166 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Kellenberger v. Widener, 159 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Aircraft Taxi Co. v. Perkins, 227 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Stembler v. Smith, 242 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)