The Nonparty Fabre Defendant

I want to discuss the concept of a “Fabre defendant.” This is an important concept in negligence cases, particularly personal injury and property damage cases. “A ‘Fabre defendant’ is a nonparty defendant whom a party defendant asserts is wholly of partially responsible for the negligence alleged [by the plaintiff].” Salazar v. Helicopter Structural & Maintenance, Inc., 986 So.2d 620, n.1 (Fla.2d DCA 2007). As further explained in Florida Statute s. 768.81(3): (3) Apportionment of damages.--In a negligence action, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party's percentage of fault and not on the basis of the...

27 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Jury Trial Considerations: Directed Verdict and the Verdict Form

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Trial Perspectives

Previously, I discussed a motion for directed verdict and, then, a motion to set aside a jury’s verdict. This is an important procedural vehicle to know because a party opposing a claim generally always moves for a direct verdict. In some instances, the court reserves ruling on the directed verdict to see how the jury decides the case. If the jury enters a verdict in favor of the party moving for a directed verdict (e.g., the defendant) then the court does not need to rule on the motion for directed verdict (it becomes moot). Recently, I wrote an article about a...

15 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Moving for a Directed Verdict and, then, a Motion to Set Aside the Verdict

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence

Moving for a directed verdict is a standard procedure in a jury trial. Simply put, after the plaintiff puts on its case-in-chief (evidence supporting its claims against the defendant), the defendant moves for a directed verdict stating that even assuming all of the evidence is true and undisputed, and all inferences relating to that evidence favor the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to prove its case as a matter of law and a jury cannot reasonably enter a verdict in favor of the plaintiff based on that evidence. See Wald v. Grainger, 64 So.3d 1201 (Fla. 2011); see also Etheredge v....

03 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Verdict Forms (General or Special) and the Two-Issue Rule

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

I previously discussed the importance of jury instructions and the jury instruction conference. Now, I want to discuss the importance of the verdict form. This is the form the jury fills out during its deliberation that identifies the associated liability and damages it determines. There are 2 types of verdict forms used. A general verdict form is a relatively simple form that is easy to prepare and asks the jury to determine whether it believes the defendant is liable and, if so, the damages the defendant owes the plaintiff. This is the type of form a plaintiff oftentimes wants. A special interrogatory verdict...

26 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Comparative Fault Applies when Substance of the Action is Sounded in Negligence

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

In previous postings (check here and here) I discussed the doctrine known as comparative fault or comparative negligence referenced in Florida Statute s. 768.81. This is when the trier of fact allocates a parties percentage of fault to the damages claimed by the plaintiff. A party can only be liable for their pro rata percentage of fault and fault can even be allocated to the plaintiff. This doctrine typically applies in negligence claims. However, in a recent construction dispute dealing with only economic damages, further discussed here, the appellate court considered that Florida Statute s. 768.81 focuses on the...