Blackburn v. Dorta
348 So. 2d 287 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The affirmative defense of implied assumption of risk is merged into the defense of contributory negligence, and the principles of comparative negligence shall apply in all cases where such a defense is asserted.
Facts:
- This case consolidated three separate negligence actions from lower courts: Blackburn v. Dorta, Leadership Housing, Inc. v. Rea, and Maule Industries, Inc. v. Parker.
- In each case, a plaintiff sued a defendant seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by the defendant's negligence.
- In each case, the defendant asserted the affirmative defense of assumption of risk against the plaintiff.
- The specific factual circumstances of the underlying incidents that led to the injuries were not detailed by the Florida Supreme Court.
- The court focused exclusively on the pure question of law concerning the viability of the assumption of risk doctrine after the adoption of comparative negligence.
Procedural Posture:
- This appeal consolidated three cases from different Florida District Courts of Appeal which had reached conflicting results.
- In Dorta v. Blackburn, the District Court of Appeal, Third District, held that assumption of risk remained a complete bar to recovery. Blackburn petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for certiorari.
- In Rea v. Leadership Housing, Inc., the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, held that assumption of risk was merged into comparative negligence and was not a complete bar. Leadership Housing, Inc. petitioned for certiorari.
- In Parker v. Maule Industries, Inc., the District Court of Appeal, First District, also held that assumption of risk was not a complete bar. Maule Industries, Inc. petitioned for certiorari.
- The Supreme Court of Florida granted certiorari in all three cases to resolve the direct conflict among the lower appellate courts on this point of law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the affirmative defense of implied assumption of risk continue to operate as a complete bar to recovery in negligence actions after Florida's adoption of the comparative negligence doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sundberg
No. The affirmative defense of implied assumption of risk is merged into the defense of contributory negligence and no longer functions as a complete bar to a plaintiff's recovery. The court reasoned that the various forms of implied assumption of risk are redundant and serve no purpose not already covered by either basic negligence principles or the defense of contributory negligence. The court distinguished between express assumption of risk (e.g., a contractual waiver), which is unaffected by this ruling, and implied assumption of risk. It further broke down implied assumption of risk into 'primary'—which is merely a restatement that the defendant was not negligent—and 'secondary'—a true affirmative defense. The court concluded that the only logical form of secondary implied assumption of risk, where a plaintiff unreasonably encounters a known risk, is analytically indistinguishable from contributory negligence. Retaining it as a separate, absolute bar to recovery would contradict the equitable principle of apportioning fault established in Hoffman v. Jones, which mandates that liability should be equated with fault.
Analysis:
This decision effectively abolishes implied assumption of risk as a distinct, all-or-nothing defense in Florida tort law. By merging the doctrine into the comparative negligence framework, the court promoted a more equitable system where a plaintiff's fault reduces, rather than eliminates, their recovery. This simplifies jury instructions and legal analysis by removing a confusing and often misapplied doctrine. The ruling aligns Florida with a growing number of jurisdictions that found the historical justifications for assumption of risk to be incompatible with modern principles of comparative fault, ensuring that liability is more accurately apportioned between negligent parties.
