Hoffman v. Jones

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida held that Florida courts have authority to replace contributory negligence with pure comparative negligence. It ruled that a plaintiff's recovery should be reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's negligence, rather than barred entirely, unless the plaintiff's negligence is the sole legal cause of the injury. The court also held that district courts of appeal may not overrule controlling Supreme Court precedent and addressed the prospective application of the new rule.

Holdings

1. A Florida District Court of Appeal does not have authority to overrule a decision of the Supreme Court of Florida and must follow controlling Supreme Court precedent until that precedent is overruled by the Supreme Court.
2. The Supreme Court of Florida has the power and authority to reexamine and replace the judicially created contributory-negligence rule with comparative negligence without awaiting legislative action.
3. Florida adopts pure comparative negligence: a plaintiff's negligence no longer completely bars recovery unless it is the sole legal cause of the loss; instead, damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's responsibility relative to the combined negligence of the parties whose negligence legally caused the injury.
4. A plaintiff is barred from recovery only when the plaintiff's negligence alone, or the plaintiff's negligence together with negligence of persons other than the defendant, was the sole legal cause of the damage; otherwise, recovery is reduced according to comparative fault.
5. The doctrine of last clear chance no longer applies in negligence cases governed by the comparative-negligence rule.
6. When both parties assert negligence claims and each obtains a verdict, the court should enter one judgment for the party receiving the larger verdict in the amount of the difference between the two verdicts.
7. The comparative-negligence rule applies to cases in which it was already applied, cases commenced before the decision in which trial had not begun, properly preserved comparative-negligence issues in cases already tried or on appeal, and all cases commenced after the decision becomes final; it does not apply to cases in which trial had begun or a verdict or judgment had been rendered unless the issue was properly raised.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Florida should replace the contributory-negligence rule, which completely bars recovery, with comparative negligence.
2. Whether a Florida District Court of Appeal may overrule controlling precedent of the Supreme Court of Florida.
3. Whether the Supreme Court of Florida has judicial authority to alter the common-law contributory-negligence rule without legislative action.
4. How the newly adopted comparative-negligence rule applies to pending cases and cases at different stages of litigation.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded