JAMES A. HUMBERSTONE AND MARGARET B. HUMBERSTONE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
PETER HENRY MULLER, III, APPELLEE
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 court addressed whether the comparative negligence rule from Hoffman v. Jones applies to a case tried after the Fourth District's decision but before Supreme Court affirmance. The court held that because appellants timely and appropriately raised the comparative negligence issue at pretrial conference, the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on comparative negligence, requiring a new trial.
Appellants properly and appropriately raised the comparative negligence issue through their oral pretrial request, which was sufficient under Hoffman's implementation directions to require the trial court to instruct the jury on comparative negligence. An oral request is adequate; a written instruction is not required.
[1] An appellate court will dispose of a case according to the law prevailing at the time of the appellate disposition, not the law prevailing at the time of the judgment app…
[2] The doctrine of comparative negligence, as established in Hoffman v. …
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“[W]e hold that this opinion shall be applied as follows: ... As to those cases in which trial has already begun or in which verdict or judgment has already been rendered, this opinion shall not be applicable, unless the applicability of the comparative negligence rule was appropriately and properly raised during some stage of the litigation.”
The Supreme Court's Hoffman standard for when comparative negligence applies, requiring the issue be appropriately and properly raised during litigation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants brought a negligence action against appellee for damages from an automobile collision, with appellants counterclaiming for appellee's negli…
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 Counterclaim For Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
McNULTY, Chief Judge.
This case involves the applicability of the comparative negligence rule enunciated in Hoffman v. Jones 1 to a case where trial was held after the Fourth District’s decision in that case 2 but prior to the Supreme Court’s affirmance.
We find that under the implementation directions in Hoffman we must quash the judgment and remand for a new trial since appellants timely requested that the issue of comparative negligence be submitted to the jury. Plaintiff-appellee brought a negligence action against appellants for damages arising out of an automobile collision. Appellants counterclaimed alleging appellee’s negligence and their own damages. At the pretrial conference, appellants orally requested that the court charge the jury on comparative negligence, expressly relying on the Fourth District’s Hoffman, supra. The trial judge accepted the request, took it under advisement but later at trial refused to grant it. Appellants recorded their objection. The Supreme Court said in Hoffman: “[W]e hold that this opinion shall be applied as follows: jfi ‡ j}i % 3. As to those cases in which trial has already begun or in which verdict or judgment has already been rendered, this opinion shall not be applicable, unless the applicability of the comparative negligence rule was appropriately and properly raised during some stage of the litigation.” (Italics ours.) Appellees now contend that appellants did not “appropriately and properly” raise comparative negligence since they did not submit a written instruction to the judge. We cannot agree. The point was resolved in Thornton v. Elliott,4 a case not nearly as strong as this. There the court determined that the comparative negligence issue was properly raised when the jury, during deliberations, returned to the courtroom and asked the judge “if one party is more negligent than the other, what is the law?” It doesn’t appear, indeed, that the plaintiff even orally requested the charge in that case.
Nonetheless, the court held there that the question asked was sufficient to raise the applicability of comparative negligence and remanded for a new trial. We can do no less under the facts here.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is quashed and the case remanded for a new trial in light of Hoffman v. Jones, supra. BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur. . (Fla.1973), 280 So. 2d 431. . (Fla.App.4th, 1973), 272 So. 2d 529. . Note 1, supra at 440. . (Fla.1973), 288 So. 2d 254.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Jones v. Hoffman, 272 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Melita Anne Thornton v. Elliott, 288 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1973)