Case Name: CNA INSURANCE, a Foreign Corporation, et al., Petitioners, v. Herman E. MINTON and Diane Minton, Individually, and as husband and wife, Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-03-31
Citations: 334 So. 2d 257
Docket Number: No. 45628
Parties: CNA INSURANCE, a Foreign Corporation, et al., Petitioners, v. Herman E. MINTON and Diane Minton, Individually, and as husband and wife, Respondents.
Judges: ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and SUND-BERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 334
Pages: 257–259

Head Matter:
CNA INSURANCE, a Foreign Corporation, et al., Petitioners, v. Herman E. MINTON and Diane Minton, Individually, and as husband and wife, Respondents.
No. 45628.
Supreme Court of Florida.
March 31, 1976.
Rehearing Denied July 19, 1976.
Steven R. Berger of Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood, Miami, for petitioners.
Paul J. Levine of Noriega & Bartel, Miami, for respondents.

Opinion:
HENSLEY, ROBERT E" Circuit Judge.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari granted to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 293 So.2d 742 (Fla.App., 1974). We find conflict with Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla., 1973). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b) (3).
The District Court held in this case that the benefits of Hoffman v. Jones, supra, applied, even though the case had been tried before Hoffman and the benefits were first raised by an assignment of error in the appellate court. There is no dispute that the question of comparative negligence was not raised at any stage of the litigation in the trial court.
In adopting the comparative negligence rule in Hoffman, this court faced the problem of its application to cases which had not yet been filed, as well as to all pending cases, whether the cases were pending in the trial courts or in the appellate courts. Upon consideration of this problem, the court determined that the rule should apply to those cases in which the cause of action had already accrued, but the cause had not yet been filed. The court further determined to apply the doctrine to cases then pending in the trial courts which had not yet been tried. It then clearly stated that it was not applicable to those cases pending in the trial courts and in which the trials thereof had then begun or been completed, with two exceptions. Those exceptions were cases which had been tried on the rule of comparative negligence and those cases which had been tried on the rule of contributory negligence but in which the applicability of the rule of comparative negligence had been properly raised before or during the trial. As to cases then pending in the appellate courts, it did not apply unless the rule had been "properly and appropriately made a question of appellate review." The rule could not have been properly or appropriately made a question of review unless the applicability of the rule had been raised at the trial level before or during the trial thereof.
Having taken jurisdiction, we determine the other issues. The main other point on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence on which the jury could have found for the Defendants in the trial court on the issue of contributory negligence. A review of the record discloses sufficient evidence to make this a question for the jury to determine. It did so and its decision will not be disturbed.
The decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, is quashed and the cause is remanded with instructions to reinstate the judgment of the trial court.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and SUND-BERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
ENGLAND, J., concurs with an opinion, with which SUNDBERG, J., concurs.
MELVIN, Circuit Judge, dissents with an opinion.
ADKINS, J., dissents and concurs with MELVIN, Circuit Judge.