D'Amario v. Ford Motor Co.11/21/2001
Petition for rehearing filed December 6, 2001. Petition for rehearing denied January 22, 2002.
KAREN D'AMARIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF CLIFFORD HARRIS, A MINOR, AND CLIFFORD HARRIS, INDIVIDUALLY, PETITIONERS,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, RESPONDENT, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
BRIAN NASH, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARIA NASH, RESPONDENT.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct Conflict Second District - Case Nos. 2D97-02429 & 2D97-02540 (Pinellas County) Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct Conflict Third District - Case No. 3D97-2844 (Dade County)
Joel D. Eaton of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin & Perwin, P.A., Miami, Florida; Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A., Clearwater, Florida; and Wagner, Vaughan & McLaughlin, P.A., Tampa, Florida, for Karen D'Amario, etc., et al., Petitioners. Wendy F. Lumish and Jeffrey A. Cohen of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Miami, Florida; and Ronald E. Cabaniss and Francis M. McDonald of Cabaniss, Conroy & McDonald, P.A., Orlando, Florida, for Ford Motor Company, Respondent. Benjamin H. Hill, III, and Marie A. Borland of Hill, Ward & Henderson, Tampa, Florida; William Powers, Jr., and Steven Goode, Austin, Texas; and Hugh F. Young, Jr., Reston, Virginia, for Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., Amicus Curiae. Daniel S. Pearson of Holland & Knight, Miami, Florida; and Chilton Davis Varner, Halli D. Cohn, and Michelle Jerusalem Cole of King & Spalding, Atlanta, Georgia, for General Motors Corporation, etc., et al., Petitioners. Mark Poses of Poses & Poses, P.A., Miami, Florida; and Marc Cooper and Nancy C. Ciampa of Colson, Hicks & Eidson, Miami, Florida, for Brian W. Nash, etc., et al., Respondents. Benjamin H. Hill, III, and Marie A. Borland of Hill, Ward & Henderson, Tampa, Florida; William Powers, Jr., and Steven Goode, Austin, Texas; and Hugh F. Young, Jr., Reston, Virginia, for Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., Amicus Curiae.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
We have for review the decision in Ford Motor Co. v. D'Amario, 732 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), which we have concluded conflicts with the decision in Nash v. General Motors Corp., 734 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), on the issue of whether principles of comparative fault apply in a crashworthiness case. We hold that principles of comparative fault concerning apportionment of fault as to the cause of the underlying crash will not ordinarily apply in crashworthiness or enhanced injury cases. Because the manufacturer alleged to be responsible for a defective product that results in a second accident and injury ordinarily may not be held liable for the injuries caused by the initial accident, the fault of the manufacturer may not be compared or apportioned with the fault of the driver of the vehicle who allegedly caused the initial crash.
SECONDARY INJURY CASES
Both cases before us involve lawsuits premised on the crashworthiness doctrine. Such cases, which are also often referred to as "secondary collision" or "enhanced injury" cases, involve both an initial accident and a subsequent or secondary collision caused by an alleged defective condition created by a manufacturer, which is unrelated to the cause of the initial accident but which causes additional and distinct injuries beyond those suffered in the primary collision. One court has explained that the damages so
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|