Opinion ID: 77115
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Florida’s Comparative Fault Statute

Text: On appeal, AHA argued that the district court improperly applied Florida’s comparative fault statute, F LA. S TAT. ch. 768.81, in determining that its recovery was limited to 41% of its proven damages. Particularly, AHA argued that the fault of Rountree, an active tortfeasor, could not be apportioned to AHA, which was vicariously liable, under the comparative fault statute because “§ 768.81 applies solely to parties who are directly negligent, and that a party who is only vicariously liable cannot have fault apportioned to him under § 768.81.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 286 F.3d at 1254. Because the resolution of the parties’ contentions on this issue was not clear from Florida precedent, we certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Florida: SHOULD A VICARIOUSLY LIABLE PARTY HAVE THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE ACTIVE TORTFEASOR APPORTIONED TO IT UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE § 768.81 SUCH THAT RECOVERY OF ITS OWN DAMAGES IS REDUCED CONCOMITANTLY? 9 Id. at 1258. After considering the issue, the Florida Supreme Court responded to the question in the affirmative. See Am. Home Assurance Co., __ So. 2d at __ (slip op. at 22). Noting that the statute provides that “any contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionately” the amount the claimant may recover, F LA. S TAT. ch. 768.81(2) (emphasis added), the court determined that the statute “must be read to include parties other than those that are directly liable, and thus [the statute] applies to vicariously liable parties such as AHA.” Am. Home Assurance Co., __ So. 2d at __ (slip op. at 22). Because the Florida Supreme Court concluded that F LA. S TAT. ch. 768.81 was properly applied to limit AHA’s recovery to 41% of its proven damages, the district court’s application of the statute and its award of damages to AHA are affirmed.