Case Name: Raymond C. PARKER, Sr., and Patricia A. Parker, his wife, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee (Defendant)
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1975-10-29
Citations: 321 So. 2d 106
Docket Number: No. V-274
Parties: Raymond C. PARKER, Sr., and Patricia A. Parker, his wife, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee (Defendant).
Judges: McCORD, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 321
Pages: 106–108

Head Matter:
Raymond C. PARKER, Sr., and Patricia A. Parker, his wife, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee (Defendant).
No. V-274.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct. 29, 1975.
Anthony I. Provitola and Michael Mc-Dermott, of Provitola & McDermott, De-land, for appellants.
Alfred A. Green, Jr., of Green, Strasser & Hammond, Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
MILLS, Judge.
Plaintiffs seek review of an adverse final judgment entered in a negligence action following a jury trial.
The issue here is whether the trial court erred in giving the jury Florida Standard Jury Instruction 3.8 which charged the jury that assumption of the risk was a complete bar to plaintiffs' recovery. The trial court erred.
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that defendant negligently operated a truck so as to cause plaintiff Parker to fall from it and suffer injuries. Defendant's answer denies negligence and affirmatively charges Parker with contributory negligence and assumption of the risk.
In our opinion, the defense of assumption of the risk is no longer a complete bar to a plaintiff's recovery. Assumption of the risk should be treated as a special form of and merged with contributory negligence. If the legal cause of injury to a plaintiff is a combination of the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's assumption of the risk, the amount of the recovery would be in proportion to the degree of the negligence of both parties. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973), and Rea v. Leadership Housing, Inc., 312 So.2d 818 (Fla.App. 4th, 1975).
We are aware that the Third District took a contrary position in Dorta v. Blackburn, 302 So.2d 450 (Fla.App. 3d, 1974), however, we adopt the position taken by the Fourth District in Rea, supra, as it is consistent with the rationale of Hoffman, supra, adopting comparative negligence.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial consistent herewith.
McCORD, J., concurs.
BOYER, C. J., dissents.