BLACKBURN V. DORTA
Sup. Ct. Fla., 348 So.2d 287 (1977)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Blackburn (P) appealed from an order of the Court of Appeal that
dismissed their negligence action on the basis of assumption of risk.
FACTS: Three cases were consolidated before the Court. The District Court of Appeal,
Third District, in Dorta v. Blackburn, 302 So.2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), found that the
doctrine of assumption of risk is still viable as an absolute bar to recovery subsequent to
the adoption of the rule of comparative negligence. On the same point of law, the District
Court of Appeal, First District, in Parker v. Maule Industries, Inc., 321 So.2d 106 (Fla.
1st DCA 1975); and the Fourth District in Rea v. Leadership Housing, Inc., 312 So.2d 818
(Fla. 4th DCA 1975), reached contrary conclusions. Subsequent to entertaining these
consolidated cases, the District Court of Appeal, First District, decided Smith v. Carter,
338 So.2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Hambrick v. Jackson, 333 So.2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976);
and Manassa v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 332 So.2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In addition,
the District Court of Appeal, Second District, decided Hall v. Holton, 330 So.2d 81 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1976). Each of these last cited decisions rejects the continued viability of assumption
of risk as a complete bar to recovery.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment