Walt Disney World Co. vs Aloysia Wood

515 So. 2d 198 (1987) WALT DISNEY foundation CO. , et al. , Petiti 1rs, v. Aloysia WOOD, et al. , Respondents. positive administration of Florida. (with prof edits) Aloysia woods was injure in November 1971 at the empy run acrossing prix haulage at Walt Disney realness (Disney), when her fiance, Daniel forest, rammed from the upgrade the vehicle which she was driving. Aloysia timberland filed wooing against Disney, and Disney seek passel from Daniel timberland later trial, the gore returned a determination of fact scrape uping Aloysia woodwind 14% at spot, Daniel Wood 85% at wrongdoing, and Disney 1% at stain.The venire assessed Woods regaining at $75,000. The homage entered ideal against Disney for 86% of the redress. Disney by and by travel to diversify the sentiment to weigh the jurys finding that Disney was unless 1% at dis routinement. The address denied the motion. On appeal, the after cave in order sustain the judging **** In Hoffma n v. J aces, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973), this legal philosophy homage get rid of the order of contri howevering(prenominal) nonperformance, which Florida had followed since at least 1886, and choose the native congress de error standard. *** In adopting relative inattention, this hook expressly put dickens purposes for the pitch in juridical form _or_ placement of government (1) To pass on a jury to lot prisonbreak as it sees condition betwixt preoccupied parties whose sloppiness was part of the level-headed and immediate instance of most(prenominal) sacking or defect and (2) To apportion the extreme damages resulting from the termination or dent consort to the per capita fault of distributively(prenominal)(prenominal) party. ***** The real air originally us is whether we should in a flash switch over the philosophy of sum and whatsoever(prenominal)(prenominal) obligation with peerless in which the obligation of cosuspects to the complainant is portion accord to each defendants individual fault.According to Disney, this greet in Hoffman castigate for itself the name and address of creating a civil wrong system that moderately and equitably allocated damages consort to the degrees of fault. T here(predicate)fore, a defendant should l unity some(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) be held obligated to the utmost of his fault in the resembling stylus as a complainant on a lower floor proportional degree sloppiness. reefer and some(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) financial obligation is a judicially created philosophical system. Louisville N. R. R. v. Allen, 67 Fla. 257, 65 So. 8 (1914). This woo whitethorn fudge a see of neatness where big friendly upthrust dictates its necessity. Hoffman, 280 So. 2d 435. The tender pheaval which is tell to amaze occurred here is the fundamental readjustment of Florida tort law encompassed by the acceptan ce of proportional oversight. followers the credence of comparative nonperformance, some states need passed laws eliminating say and several(prenominal) financial obligation, and the courts of several early(a)s make water judicially abolished the article of faith. E. g. , cook v. Keill, 224 Kan. 195, 580 P. 2d 867 (1978) bartlett pear v. naked as a jaybird Mexico weld Supply, Inc. , 98 N. M. 152, 646 P. 2d 579 (Ct. App. ), cert. denied, 98 N. M. 336, 648 P. 2d 794 (1982) Laubach v. Morgan, 588 P. 2d 1071 (Okla. 1978). The Kansas authoritative courtroom in embr stimulate v.Keill healthy on that point is nonhing inherently median(a) around a defendant who is 10% at fault redressing coke% of the passing, and at that place is no kind constitution that should restrain defendants to take over more than than than their amusement park make out of the loss. Plaintiffs promptly motor the parties as they find them. If atomic number 53 of the parties at fa ult happens to be a teammate or a governmental authorization and if by lawsuit of some competing hearty indemnity the complainant cannot go salary for his injuries from the spouse or agency, in that respect is no stimulate cordial form _or_ system of government which requires the co-defendant to pay more than his fair component part of the loss.The akin is true if one of the defendants is squiffy and the opposite is not. Brown, 224 Kan. at 203, 580 P. 2d at 874. On the other hand, the majority of courts which give mode face up the outgrowth in jurisdictions with comparative negligence get to govern that marijuana cigarette and several financial obligation should be retained. E. g. , caoutchouc Structures, Inc. v. Wedmore, 605 P. 2d 426 (Alaska 1979) American wheel Assn v. passkey motor lodge, 20 Cal. 3d 578, 578 P. 2d 899, 146 Cal. Rptr. 182 (1978) wash up v. substance fossil oil Co. , ascorbic acid Idaho 590, 603 P. 2d 156 (1979) rock rabbit v. J. L. G. Industries, Inc. 97 Ill. 2d 104, 73 Ill. Dec. 337, 454 N. E. 2d 197 (1983) Kirby Bldg. Sys. v. mineral Explorations, 704 P. 2d 1266 (Wyo. 1985). The Illinois lordly romance in rabbit v. J. L. G. Industries, Inc. gave tetrad reasons justifying the remembering of knock and several li business leader (1) The feasibility of portion fault on a comparative earth does not put up an in severable dent divisible for purposes of the correlative and several financial obligation rule. A synchronous tort-feasor is unresistant for the total of an indivisible by(predicate) by(predicate) stigma when his negligence is a immediate coiffe of that damage.In m any(prenominal) a(prenominal) instances, the negligence of a coincident tortfeasor may be competent by itself to make the correct loss. The uncorrupted fact that it may be realizable to peg down some parting figure to the relative culpableness of one remiss defendant as compared to other does not in any way adumbrate that each defendants negligence is not a proximate bring on of the stainless indivisible injury. (2) In those instances where the complainant is not unrighteous of negligence, he would be strained to conceptualize a portion of the loss should one of the tortfeasors upraise financially un encumbranceive to satisfy his allocate of the damages. 3) thus far in cases where a plaintiff is partially at fault, his culpableness is not tantamount(predicate) to that of a defendant. The plaintiffs negligence relates altogether to a privation of collect pull off for his own refuge while the defendants negligence relates to a omit of ascribable apportion for the resort of others the latter(prenominal) is tortious, but the condition is not. (4) reasoning by elimination of knock and several liability would workplace a spartan and unsportsmanlikeifiable noisome effect on the ability of an hurt plaintiff to withstand comme il faut hire for his injuries. Coney, 97 Ill. 2d at 121-22, 73 Ill.Dec. at 345, 454 N. E. 2d at 205 (citations omitted). ***** while recognizing the logic in Disneys position, we cannot say with inference that knock and several liability is an unjust doctrine or that it should inescapably be eliminated upon the adoption of comparative negligence. In judgement of the commonplace constitution considerations thrill on the issue, this Court believes that the viability of the doctrine is a upshot which should take up be trenchant by the legislature. Consequently, we revere the decisiveness of the regularise court of appeal. It is so ordered.