|
Blackburn v Dorta
S. Ct. Florida, [1977]
Author:- Sam
Biers
Defenses - Plaintiff’s Conduct;
Assumption of Risk-Implied
Relevant Facts: Several
cases simultaneously brought under the consolidation action,
involving “conflict certiorari jurisdiction.”
Legal Issue(s): Whether the
doctrine of assumption of risk is still viable as an absolute
defense barring recovery subsequent to adoption of the rule of
comparative negligence?
Court’s Holding: No
Procedure: Consolidation of
several cases. Ct. of Appeals (Hoffman) Contrib and assumpt
merge. as one defense and shall apply to all cases where such
defenses are asserted. Affirmed.
Law or Rule(s): A primary
function of a court is to see that legal conflicts are equitably
resolved.
Contributory neg and assumption merge and
apply as one defense under the law.
Court Rationale: Assumption
of risk is not a favored defense. Assumption of risk is
interchangeable with contributory negligence and should be
treated equally. Primary a of r = df was not negligent b/c he
owed no duty to pl. Secondary a of r = establishes a breach
of a duty owed by df to pl. Primary implied assumption of
risk is subsumed into the principle of negligence
itself. Since there is no readily distinguishable form
between contributory neg and assumpt of risk there can be no
separate affirmative defense. The only basis to maintain a
distinction is where a pl exhibits unreasonable conduct.
Plaintiff’s Argument:
The assumption of risk serves no purpose which is not subsumed by
either the doctrine of contributory negligence or the common law
concept of duty, and is a complete bar for recovery.
Defendant’s Argument:
Contributory negligence is a separate defense and completely bars
recovery by the pl.
|
