 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
D'Amario v. Ford Motor Co.11/21/2001
ol content to go to the jury:
The Court now finds that by permitting the publication of the blood alcohol content to the jury, coupled with the remarks of defense counsel in closing arguments to the effect that the "animal in the car was `alcohol,'" caused undue emphasis to be placed on alcohol as a primary cause of the injury. . . . The Court found that under the Kidron[ ] case that the Defendant was entitled to a jury finding of percentage of fault, if any, on the part of anyone whose negligence was the proximate cause of Plaintiff's damages. . . . While generally the right to amendment of pleadings declines as trial approaches, the Court here found no real prejudice was present in allowing Defendants to amend their affirmative defenses as was done and especially so since there was no doubt from the pleadings before the amendment as to whom the driver was.
Nothing in the evidence offered before or after the amendment changes now the conclusion that under F.S. 90.403 the Court should have excluded the remote condition of alcohol from the case.
When Ford appealed, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that " n the facts in this crash-worthiness case, the appellant [Ford] properly raised an apportionment defense." D'Amario, 732 So. 2d at 1145 (citing Kidron, Inc. v. Carmona, 665 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)).
Nash
While Maria Nash was driving to church with her two children in the back seat of her 1990 Chevrolet Corsica, a car approaching from the opposite direction crossed the center line and crashed into Nash's car. Nash's head struck the metal post that separates the windshield from the driver's door. She later died as a result of her head injuries, although her two children survived. The record reveals that the driver of the other car was intoxicated and had a blood alcohol content of .15 percent. Nash's estate filed suit against General Motors, the manufacturer of the vehicle Nash was driving at the time of the accident, alleging a failure of the vehicle's seatbelt and "that General Motors was strictly liable for a design defect which had been discovered in the seatbelt of the 1990 Chevrolet Corsica." Nash, 734 So. 2d at 439. As in D'Amario, the district court's opinion reflects that prior to trial,
the estate asked the trial court to exclude evidence of the other driver's intoxication. The estate argued that such evidence would be too prejudicial in the jury's consideration of comparative fault. In ruling on this matter, the trial court relied on this court's decision in Stellas v. Alamo Rent-A-Car Inc., 673 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA) (holding that a non-party intentional tortfeasor should appear on the verdict form so as to permit the jury to apportion fault with the negligent tortfeasor), review granted, 683 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1996), and decision quashed by 702 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1997). Accordingly, the trial court found that the jury "had a right to know all the facts" concerning someone who appears on the verdict form. Nash, 734 So. 2d at 439.
The jury ultimately found no liability on the part of the automobile manufacturer, General Motors, and therefore did not consider the percentage of fault that should be attributed to the drunk driver who caused the accident. The trial court denied the estate's motion for new trial.
On appeal, the estate asserted that the evidence that Charles Chatfield, the other motorist, was intoxicated, was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial to the issue of whether General Motors was negligent in designing a defective seatbelt. The Third District agreed, holding that it was error to permit the jury to apportion fault between an intentional tortfeasor and a negligent t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|