Cases from cite.case.law:

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. R. J. v. MARTIN,, 262 So. 3d 769 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Schoeff, 178 So.3d at 495-96 (interpreting section 768.81 to require apportionment of comparative fault . . . in a tobacco case because at its core it is a product liability action, and concluding "that section 768.81 . . .

BROWN BROWN, INC. v. T. GELSOMINO, 262 So. 3d 755 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Therefore, the question remains: which version of section 768.81, applies-the statute passed and effective . . . party's percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability." § 768.81 . . . In 2011, the legislature amended section 768.81 to include new statutory language that related in part . . . The enacting legislation for the 2011 amendment to section 768.81 stated that the act was retroactive . . . Section 3 clearly applies to the entire statute, section 768.81. . . .

SEARCY, v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,, 902 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2018)

. . . claim are not subject to apportionment under Florida's comparative fault statute, Florida Statute § 768.81 . . . First, Defendants argue that the Florida comparative fault statute, Florida Statute § 768.81, required . . . Stat. § 768.81(2). . . . Stat. § 768.81(4). . . . So, taken by itself, § 768.81 does not permit apportionment here. B. . . .

REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC. v. NAVAS,, 252 So. 3d 380 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . . § 768.81(3), Fla. Stat. (2011). . . . in the statute, preventing application of the statute to actions "based upon an intentional tort." § 768.81 . . . verdict form as a Fabre defendant because Martin's conduct did not fall within the exception to section 768.81 . . . Navas also relies on the Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 449, a position that ignores section 768.81 . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. v. BROWN,, 243 So. 3d 521 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . inability to provide verdicts on other theories or on comparative-fault percentages was not critical, see § 768.81 . . .

A. NICE, a R. Lt USMC H. N. a v. L- COMMUNICATIONS VERTEX AEROSPACE LLC,, 885 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2018)

. . . . § 768.81(3)(a). . . .

BURKHART, v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, USA,, 884 F.3d 1068 (11th Cir. 2018)

. . . . § 768.81, mandates comparative-fault reduction in negligence and products-liability actions but does . . . Id. § 768.81(3) - (4) (emphasis added). . . .

IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO., 236 So. 3d 919 (Fla. 2018)

. . . is support for giving a special instruction explaining to the jury the impact and effect of an F.S. 768.81 . . . There is support for giving a special instruction explaining to the jury the impact and effect of F.S. 768.81 . . .

SMITH, Sr. v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,, 880 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2018)

. . . Stat. § 768.81(2) (2011). . . . Id. § 768.81(1)(c). . . . Id. § 768.81(1)(d). . . . Id. § 768.81(4). . . . . § 768.81(1)(c) and (d). . . .

SCHOEFF, v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,, 232 So. 3d 294 (Fla. 2017)

. . . See § 768.81(3)(a)l. . . . See § 768.81(4), Fla. Stat. (2001, 2006). . . . Before 2011, section 768.81 used the terms "case” and "action" interchangeably. . . . E.g., § 768.81, Fla. . . . See generally § 768.81, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . . fault statute reduces 'defendants’ liability by the percentage of fáiilt of other culpable parties. § 768.81 . . . Id. § 768.81(l)(c). . . . Id. § 768.81(4). . . . “action[s] based upon an intentional tort” in violation of the intentional tort exception, section 768.81 . . . party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability. § 768.81 . . . substantively the same under both the 1992 and 2011 versions of the statute, Majority op. at 801; see § 768.81 . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. R. J. v. MARCHESE,, 231 So. 3d 473 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . However, courts apply a de novo standard when considering the apportionment of damages under section 768.81 . . . that fraudulent concealment was an intentional tort, and comparative fault was barred under section 768.81 . . . This court held, “Section 768.81 does not permit the reduction of compensatory damages by plaintiffs . . . We stated that “section 768.81 cannot be avoided simply because the action includes an intentional tort . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. R. J. v. LEDOUX,, 230 So. 3d 530 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . For this proposition, Plaintiff relies upon section 768.81, Florida Statutes (2016), entitled "Comparative . . . denied Defendants’ request because at its core this was an “action based . upon an intentional tort.” § 768.81 . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY USA v. R. ALLEN Sr. FOR ESTATE OF L. ALLEN,, 228 So. 3d 684 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Sury, 118 So.3d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), that apportionment of fault is not required by section 768.81 . . .

HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 225 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2017)

. . . Ch. 2011-215 § 1, Laws of Florida (codified at § 768.81(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011)). . . . See, e.g., Caccavella, 814 So.2d at 1149 (holding § 768.81, Fla. . . . And, the Legislature did not change this rule when it adopted section 768.81, Florida Statutes. . . . See generally § 768.81(2)-(3), Fla. Stat. (2015). . . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. LLC, v. BOATRIGHT, 217 So. 3d 166 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . At issue is whether the comparative fault statute, section 768.81, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), requires . . . First, we note that the Boatrights’ counsel did not waive the argument that section 768.81 does not apply . . . Second, we address the merits of the Boatrights’ argument and agree that section 768.81 is inapplicable . . . liability, and product liability. § 768.81(4)(a). . . . The statute explicitly does not apply to “any action based upon an intentional tort.” § 768.81(4)(b). . . .

THERMOSET CORPORATION, a f. k. a. v. BUILDING MATERIALS CORP OF AMERICA, a d. b. a. GAF LLC, a, 849 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 768.81(3). . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. GROSSMAN,, 211 So. 3d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . The court’s refusal was based on its finding that section 768.81(4), Florida Statutes, (2013) barred . . .

PORT CHARLOTTE HMA, LLC, d b a a v. SUAREZ, K. D. P. a, 210 So. 3d 187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . In D’Angelo, 863 So.2d at 314, the supreme court recognized that prior to the enactment of section 768.81 . . . But in 1997, Florida enacted section 768.81(3), which read as follows: APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES.— In . . . However, in 2006, the Florida Legislature amended section 768.81(3) and specifically deleted the provision . . . party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.” § 768.81 . . . 411, 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (recognizing that joint and several liability was eliminated in section 768.81 . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, USA LLC, v. CALLOWAY,, 201 So. 3d 753 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Sections 768.81(2) and (4), Florida Statutes (1992), provide, in part, that in “negligence cases,” the . . . injury attributable to the claimant’s contributory .fault,” however, it does not prevent recovery. § 768.81 . . . Id. § 768.81(4)(a). . . . Id. § 768.81(4)(b). . . . substance of the action to determine if the claims were grounded in negligence as required by section 768.81 . . .

OKEECHOBEE AERIE FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES, INC. v. WILDE, 199 So. 3d 333 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . In Grobman, we held that “section 768.81 [the statute interpreted in Fabre ] does not require the apportionment . . .

ORANGE COUNTY, v. S. BUCHMAN W., 183 So. 3d 457 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Section 768.71(1), provides that sections 768.71 through 768.81, Florida Statutes, are applicable to . . .

SEABERG, v. STEAK N SHAKE OPERATIONS, INC., 154 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . . § 768.81. See also Latimer v. . . .

BRADFIELD, v. MID- CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, a, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . . § 768.81(3). . . .

M. GILBERT, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 311 F.R.D. 685 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . . § 768.81(3). . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. SCHOEFF,, 178 So. 3d 487 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Sections 768.81(2) and (4), Florida Statutes (1994), provide, in pertinent part, that in “negligence . . . Section 768.81 does not permit the reduction of compensatory damages by plaintiffs comparative fault . . . See § 768.81(4)(b) Fla. . . . Considering the interplay between section 768.81 and an Engle progeny suit alleging causes of actions . . . Courts generally have held that the applicable version of section 768.81 is the version in effect at . . .

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO, v. AIR CAPITAL GROUP, LLC ABAD,, 614 F. App'x 460 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 768.81(3). . . . See id. § 768.81(4); Meyer v. Thompson, 861 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2003). . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO. PRODUCTS LIABILITY, 160 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 2015)

. . . AND “ENHANCED INJURY” CLAIMS (RESERVED) NOTES ON USE FOR 403.16 In 2011, the legislature amended F.S. 768.81 . . . NOTE ON USE FOR 403.18e See F.S. 768.81; Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993). . . .

SAUNDERS, v. DICKENS, M. D., 151 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2014)

. . . Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993); see also § 768.81(3), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. HIOTT,, 129 So. 3d 473 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . that because the jury found Reynolds committed the intentional tort of fraudulent concealment, section 768.81 . . . because Reynolds committed an intentional tort, and thus Florida’s comparative fault statute, section 768.81 . . . Hiott relies on this court’s decision in Sury, where we held that section 768.81(4)(b), Florida Statutes . . . disregard the jury’s comparative fault finding and decline to reduce the damages award under section 768.81 . . . We think the rationale of Foreline on this point is not dependent on section 768.81, Florida Statutes . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. BUONOMO,, 138 So. 3d 1049 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . reach the merits of plaintiff's argument that reduction of the compensatory damages pursuant to section 768.81 . . .

DENTON, v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. USA,, 985 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 768.81(1)(c); see West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80, 92 (Fla.1976). . . . Stat. § 768.81. . . . Fla Stat. § 768.81(2, 3) (emphasis added). . . .

MARTINEZ, v. MIAMI- DADE COUNTY,, 975 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . contribution arguing that claims for contribution have become obsolete as a result of Florida Statute, section 768.81 . . . Section 768.81(3) states that “In a negligence action, the court shall enter judgment against each party . . . Miami-Dade County responds that section 768.81(3) does not apply to the instant action because it is . . . Consequently, section 768.81(3) does not apply. . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. BUONOMO,, 128 So. 3d 102 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . reach the merits of plaintiff’s argument that reduction of the compensatory damages pursuant to section 768.81 . . .

TAMPA BAY WATER, a v. HDR ENGINEERING, INC. a, 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 768.81(3). . . .

L. DAY, v. PERSELS ASSOCIATES, LLC, a LLC, B. R. a f. k. a. LLC,, 729 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 768.81(3). . . .

C. GERHARDT v. Y. CROWE, TYC a E. Jr. d b a B., 118 So. 3d 1006 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Inc., 11 So.3d 411, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“The jury would determine the same issues under section 768.81 . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. SURY,, 118 So. 3d 849 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Doud, 485 So.2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and concluded that section 768.81, Florida Statutes, did not . . . Applying the law to the facts found by the jury, the trial court properly ruled that section 768.81, . . . Section 768.81(2), Florida Statutes provides: In a negligence action, contributory fault chargeable to . . . The question in this case is whether section 768.81 requires reduction of the damages awarded when the . . . McDonald, 705 So.2d 560, 562 (Fla.1997), the public policy behind the exclusion in section 768.81 for . . .

CHIQUITA FRESH NORTH AMERICA, L. L. C. v. GREENE TRANSPORT COMPANY,, 949 F. Supp. 2d 954 (N.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . . § 768.81, means Chiquita could only be liable for its own actions, not for the actions of GTC, Ajax . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASE- REPORT NO., 130 So. 3d 596 (Fla. 2013)

. . . NOTE ON USE FOR 401.22Í See F.S. 768.81 (1993); Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993). . . . is support for giving a special instruction explaining to the jury the impact and effect of an F.S. 768.81 . . . There is support for giving a special instruction explaining to the jury the impact and effect of F.S. 768.81 . . .

CLAUDIO a k a v. REGALADO, Sr. Jr. a Sr. Sr., 116 So. 3d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Fabre defendant who was the co-defendant who had just been dismissed from the suit, saying “[sjection 768.81 . . . The Statutory Requirement of Section 768.81 That Reduces Mr. . . . Section 768.81(3) is the guide to setting the parameters of Mr. Claudio’s responsibility for Mr. . . . But the district court went on to explain that because section 768.20 had priority over section 768.81 . . . Section 768.81 controlled as between Metro-Dade and the aunt in relation to the father’s award, because . . .

CALHOUN, v. NIENHUIS,, 110 So. 3d 24 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . accrues; except that an action for contribution must be commenced within the limitations provided in s. 768.81 . . .

A. BIRGE, v. D. CHARRON,, 107 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 2012)

. . . .”); see also § 768.81(3)(a), Fla. . . . See § 768.81(2), Fla. Stat. . . . See § 768.81(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . See § 768.81(2), (3), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . See § 768.81(4)(a), Fla. . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. GROSSMAN,, 96 So. 3d 917 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . . § 768.81(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). R.J. . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. v. HESS,, 95 So. 3d 254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 768.81(3)-(4), Fla. Stat. (1993). . . .

CONTINENTAL FLORIDA MATERIALS a v. KUSHERMAN,, 91 So. 3d 159 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 768.81, Florida Statutes (2007), provides for comparative fault and apportionment of damages . . . by a preponderance of the evidence, the fault of the nonparty in causing the plaintiffs injuries. § 768.81 . . .

WAL- MART STORES, INC. v. STRACHAN, LLC, Al, 82 So. 3d 1052 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . The court agreed with the tire manufacturer that the 2006 amendments to section 768.81, Florida Statutes . . . Anderson does not address section 768.81 and the 2006 amendments. . . . Town & Country Builders, Inc., 35 So.3d 79, 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), which does not address section 768.81 . . .

MILLETTE, v. TARNOVE, a a N. A. a, 435 F. App'x 848 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . Stat. § 768.81 The Supreme Court of Florida has held that the comparative fault statute, Fla. . . . Stat. 768.81(3)(a); see also Nash, 678 So.2d at 1264. . . . Stat. § 768.81(4)(a) explains that the statute applies to “negligence cases.” . . . Stat. § 768.81(4)(a) (emphasis added). . . . Stat. § 768.81(4)(b) for such intentional torts. 2. . . .

M. WITT, v. LA GORCE COUNTRY CLUB, INC. La v. ITT, 35 So. 3d 1033 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Section 768.81, Florida Statutes (2005), provides in pertinent part, that “[i]n order to allocate any . . . by a preponderance of the evidence, the fault of the nonparty in causing the plaintiffs injuries.” § 768.81 . . . Prior to trial, Witt amended its affirmative defenses to allege contribution by ITT pursuant to section 768.81 . . .

LA COSTA BEACH CLUB RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. CARIOTI,, 37 So. 3d 303 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . “The enactment of section 768.81, Florida Statutes, represented a policy shift in the State of Florida . . . Faber, 745 So.2d 968, 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); § 768.81(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO. In No. In No. In No. In No. s In No. In No. In No. In No., 35 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2010)

. . . NOTE ON USE FOR 401.22f See F.S. 768.81 (1993); Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993). . . . NOTE ON USE FOR 402.14e See F.S. 768.81 (1993); Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993). . . . (Fla.1997), the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of comparative negligence, as codified in F.S. 768.81 . . . For example, see F.S. 768.81(4)(a) defining “negligence cases.” 4. . . . is support for giving a special instruction explaining to the jury the impact and effect of an F.S. 768.81 . . .

WORTHINGTON COMMUNITIES, INC. v. MEJIA RSKO d b a ASC, 28 So. 3d 79 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Under the applicable version of the joint and several liability statute, section 768.81, Florida Statutes . . .

KELECSENY, v. CHEVRON, U. S. A. INC. a, 262 F.R.D. 660 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . 334, 338 (Fla.1997) (“comparative fault principles shall apply in negligence cases”) (citing Section 768.81 . . . As one court has noted, Florida’s law of comparative fault as codified in section 768.81, Florida Statutes . . .

ERICKSON, v. L. IRVING,, 16 So. 3d 868 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . fault, none of the defendants were jointly and severally liable for the damages, pursuant to section 768.81 . . .

In WEST CARIBBEAN CREW MEMBERS, 632 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 768.81. . . .

T S ENTERPRISES HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY, INC. a v. WINK INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE REPAIR, INC. a L. K. a, 11 So. 3d 411 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 768.81, the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, was in effect at the time of the trial . . . party’s percentage of fault “and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.” § 768.81 . . . evidence would presumably be the same whether presented in this case under the provisions of section 768.81 . . . The jury would determine the same issues under section 768.81(3) as it would in a third-party action, . . . cited in this opinion may not have been overruled by the enactment of the current version of section 768.81 . . .

ESTATE OF MILLER, MILLER v. THRIFTY RENT- A- CAR SYSTEM, INC., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Fabre, 623 So.2d at 1185-87 (“[Section 768.81 [of the Florida Statutes] was enacted to replace joint . . . That ruling was thereafter codified by statute in section 768.81(3) of the Florida Statutes. . . . Later, in Fabre, the Florida Supreme Court interpreted section 768.81(3) as dispensing with the concept . . . In turn, the legislature codified this interpretation of Section 768.81(3). . . . In its current form, section 768.81(3) reads as follows: (3) Apportionment of damages. — In cases to . . .

HEALTHCARE STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. v. WILKINSON, WILKINSON, H. A., 5 So. 3d 726 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . is based on the same principle as Florida’s comparative fault statute, which is codified at section 768.81 . . . Compare § 768.81(3), Fla. . . .

HENNIS, v. CITY TROPICS BISTRO, INC., 1 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 768.81 of the Florida Statutes (2007), sets forth Florida’s comparative fault statute. . . . However, the Legislature’s enactment of section 768.81 represented a policy shift away from joint and . . . Hennis contends that the trial court erred in applying section 768.81 in this case in order to apportion . . . Stat. § 768.81 (2001); Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182, 1185-86 (Fla.1993). . . . The plain language of section 768.81 of the Florida Statutes states that the apportionment provisions . . .

PETIT- DOS, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, a, 2 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . The comparative fault statute, section 768.81, Florida Statutes, provides for apportionment of fault . . . However, the statute contains an exception “to any action based upon an intentional tort.” § 768.81(4 . . . Thus, section 768.81 did not apply and the intentional tortfeasor was properly excluded from the verdict . . .

M. COOPERSMITH, M. D. I. M. D. I. M. D. P. A. P. A. A. M. D. E. M. D. P. A. v. McCORMICK,, 988 So. 2d 49 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . turns on whether [the HMO] was a party defendant to which the apportionment requirement of section 768.81 . . . If section 768.81(3) did not apply, then ... the failure to include it on the verdict form had no legal . . . We went on to explain that: “To decide whether section 768.81 applies requires more than determining . . . One must examine the cause of action asserted against a settling defendant to determine if section 768.81 . . . We further noted that section 768.81 requires apportionment of non-economic damages in cases involving . . .

BRAVO, v. UNITED STATES M. D., 532 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 768.81(3) between the culpable Naval personnel (for which it admitted responsibility) and Dr. . . . Stat. § 768.81(3) to apportion the damages among the joint tortfeasors; and (3) not further reducing . . . Stat. § 768.81(3) applied, making all of the defendants jointly and severally liable for the entire damage . . . Because we agree with that alternative ruling we need not address the § 768.81(3) issues. . . . Stat. § 768.81(3). . . .

P. SHAH v. BLAND, 973 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Bland under section 768.81, Florida Statutes (2001). . . . transporting this large engine was inherently dangerous and that the fault of the hauler under section 768.81 . . . We are not aware of any case that has extended the holding in American Home to apply section 768.81 to . . . the argument presented by the Defendants, we have some doubt that the legislature intended section 768.81 . . . Section 768.81(2) does not reference vicarious liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine . . .

BAKERMAN, v. THE BOMBAY COMPANY, INC., 961 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2007)

. . . Such instruction was directly contrary to section 768.81(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), which provided . . .

JOHNSON, a v. FFE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. a, 227 F. App'x 780 (11th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 768.81(3). . In Bonner v. . . .

In SCOTT ACQUISITION CORP. S. s, v. P. A. F. L. L. C. F., 364 B.R. 562 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007)

. . . . § 768.81(4)(a)(2006). . . . STAT. § 768.81(2). See, e.g., In re Fuzion Techs. . . .

CONNELL v. RIGGINS, 944 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . . § 768.81(2), Fla. Stat. (2001); see Y.H. Inv., Inc. v. . . . Godales, 690 So.2d 1273, 1277 (Fla.1997) (construing section 768.81, Florida Statutes, as “a legislative . . .

YAKAVONIS, v. DOLPHIN PETROLEUM, INC. a a a d b a a, 934 So. 2d 615 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 768.81(3)(d) and (e), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .

KAY S CUSTOM DRAPES, INC. v. GARROTE, 920 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 768.81(3)(d), Fla. . . . Section 768.81(3)(d) of the Florida Statutes requires a defendant seeking to impute fault to a negligent . . . non-party to plead such a defense. § 768.81(3)(d), Fla. . . .

AMH APPRAISAL CONSULTANTS, INC. v. ARGOV GAVISH PARTNERSHIP,, 919 So. 2d 580 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . In order to include a nonparty, such as this agent, on the verdict form under section 768.81(3), Florida . . .

HIBBARD, o b o K. CARR, v. McGRAW, 918 So. 2d 967 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . In 1986, the Legislature enacted section 768.81, the comparative fault statute. . . . In 1999, the Legislature amended section 768.81 to provide joint and several liability for economic damages . . . However, this court has held the 1999 amendment to section 768.81 is prospective only and may not be . . . The 1997 version of section 768.81, in effect at the time of the accident in this case, apportioned damages . . .

POSEY, v. R. GROBMAN, M. D. R. M. D. P. A. SSJ, 951 So. 2d 857 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . We have considered sections 46.015(2), 768.041(2), and 768.81, Florida Statutes, applicable to damage . . .

D. A. B. CONSTRUCTORS, INC. B. v. P. OLIVER,, 914 So. 2d 462 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Fault cannot be divided into percentages as contemplated in Willis Shaw, section 768.81 or rule 1.442 . . .

ROOS, v. MORRISON,, 913 So. 2d 59 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . App.1992), or the application of section 768.81, Florida Statutes (2002), to this action. . . .

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION AMTRAK CSX f. u. b. o. v. ROUNTREE TRANSPORT AND RIGGING, INC. WOKO f. u. b. o. v. CSX Co. CSX v. WOKO Co., 422 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . Stat. ch. 768.81 applied and limited its recovery to 41% of its proven damages. . . . Stat. ch. 768.81, in determining that its recovery was limited to 41% of its proven damages. . . . Stat. ch. 768.81(2) (emphasis added), the court determined that the statute “must be read to include . . . Stat. ch. 768.81 was properly applied to limit AHA’s recovery to 41% of its proven damages, the district . . . Stat. ch. 768.81, the Florida comparative fault statute. . . .

JONES, v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, INC., 908 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2005)

. . . FIGA also asserted that damages against the Association were only available as permitted by section 768.81 . . .

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION,, 908 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2005)

. . . Section 768.81, Florida Statutes, codified the holding of Hoffman v. Jones. . . . . § 768.81(2)-(3), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . Section 768.81 was enacted as part of the comprehensive Tort Reform and Insurance Act of 1986. . . . The First District concluded that the Legislature did not intend for the language in section 768.81 to . . . Our conclusion that section 768.81 applies to vicariously liable parties as well as active tortfeasors . . .

BURNS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SERVICES INC. OF FLORIDA, v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, D H D H, 899 So. 2d 361 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Indemnity and D & H cross-appeal the trial court’s application of the comparative fault statute section 768.81 . . . Stat. § 768.81 (2001); Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182, 1185-86 (Fla.1993). . . . This interpretation is inconsistent with Section 768.81, which the trial court properly applied in this . . . that the trial judge miscalculated the amount of damages under § 768.81(3)(a). . . . See § 768.81(3)(a)(3). . . .

SIMS v. CRISTINZIO, Jr. Jr. v., 898 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . that there can be apportionment of fault against them for noneco-nomic damages pursuant to section 768.81 . . .

GACS INCORPORATED, v. EVANS D., 893 So. 2d 705 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . The plain language of section 768.81, Florida Statutes, requires that a plaintiffs percentage of contributory . . . negligence . action be subtracted from the amount of economic damages determined by the jury, see § 768.81 . . . See § 768.81(3), Fla.. Stat. . . .

VANTRAN INDUSTRIES, INC. v. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., 890 So. 2d 421 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . McDonald, 705 So.2d 560 (Fla.1997), for the proposition that section 768.81, Florida Statutes, the comparative . . .

PHILIP MORRIS INC. R. J. v. FRENCH,, 897 So. 2d 480 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Finally, the defendants also argued that the jury should have apportioned fault under section 768.81, . . .

BEARINT, BEARINT, v. DOREL JUVENILE GROUP, INC. f. n. a., 389 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 768.81 (2004). . . .

SENDZISCHEW, M. D. M. D. v. JOHNSON,, 934 So. 2d 487 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Stat. (2003); § 768.81(3)(6), Fla. Stat. (1991); Osler v. . . .

OSHEROFF a v. RAUCH WEAVER MILLSAPS CO. a Co. a a V. a, 882 So. 2d 503 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . recently noted ,that: ■ Florida law regarding setoffs is found in sections 46.015(2), 768.041(2), and 768.81 . . .

H. C. SMITH INVESTMENTS, L. L. C. v. OUTBOARD MARINE COMPANY,, 377 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 768.81(3)(e). . . . Ann. § 768.81(3)(e) and Fabre v. . . .

McFARLAND SON, INC. v. BASEL, 877 So. 2d 964 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Basel appealed, arguing that the trial court applied the wrong version of section 768.81, Florida Statutes . . .

NORMAN, v. FARROW,, 880 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2004)

. . . Section 768.81(2), Florida Statutes (2003), addresses comparative negligence and provides: (2) EFFECT . . . A plain reading of section 768.81(2) is that “the amount awarded as economic and noneconomic damages” . . .

COHEN, a P. A. v. ARVIN P. A., 878 So. 2d 403 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . In such a case, where the retailer’s liability is not based on fault, section 768.81(3), Florida Statutes . . .

JACKSON As v. YORK HANNOVER NURSING CENTERS,, 876 So. 2d 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Section 768.81, Florida Statutes (1999), deals with apportionment of damages, and in cases to which this . . .

COUSINS CLUB CORP. v. A. SILVA E., 869 So. 2d 719 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . In Wells, the supreme court reviewed the apportionment of damages statutes, section 768.81(3), Florida . . . Recognizing that under section 768.81(3), each defendant is solely, not jointly, responsible for his . . .

McELROY v. WHITTINGTON,, 867 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . In such a case, where the retailer’s liability is not based on fault, section 768.81(3), Florida Statutes . . .

FORELINE SECURITY CORPORATION, v. SCOTT,, 871 So. 2d 906 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . verdict ($26,917,000) ruling that allocation of damages for comparative negligence pursuant to section 768.81 . . .

GARCIA, v. M. ARRAGA,, 872 So. 2d 266 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See § 768.81 Fla. Stat. (2002). . . .

R. GROBMAN, M. D. R. M. D. P. A. SSJ d b a d b a v. POSEY,, 863 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Crucial to the trilogy of section 768.81 settlement cases is the assumption that section 768.81(3) applies . . . Section 768.81 “applies to negligence cases, including professional malpractice cases.” . . . .; see § 768.81(4), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . Thus, there can be no “fault” within the meaning of section 768.81(3). . . . (3), the trilogy of section 768.81 settlement cases ending with D’Angelo does not control. . . .

VELIZ, v. RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATION USA, INC., 313 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . Florida Statute § 768.81(2) details the effect of contributory fault. . . .

ELIZA STEPHENSON MEYER, v. ROBERT C. THOMPSON, W., 861 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Section 768.81(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2002) defines comparative fault and sets forth when the issue . . .

HIBBARD, o b o K. v. McGRAW, 862 So. 2d 816 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . In 1986, the Legislature enacted section 768.81, the comparative fault statute. . . . In 1999, the Legislature amended section 768.81 to provide joint and several liability for economic damages . . . However, this court has held the 1999 amendment to section 768.81 is prospective only and may not be . . . The 1997 version of section 768.81, in effect at the time of the accident in this case, apportioned damages . . .

C. D ANGELO, M. D. v. J. FITZMAURICE, J. v. C. D M. D., 863 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2003)

. . . After these statutes were first enacted, the Legislature enacted section 768.81, Florida Statutes (1997 . . . Section 768.81(4) expressly provides that the statute applies to negligence cases, including professional . . . APPLICATION OF LAW 1.Applicability of Section 768.81, Florida Statutes D’Angelo argues that section 768.81 . . . Section 768.81(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), states: “This section applies to negligence cases.” . . . Section 768.81(3) was amended in 1999; however, the applicable version is that which was in effect when . . .

J. LAGUEUX, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION,, 861 So. 2d 87 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Addressing apportionment of liability, section 768.81 provides that “the court shall enter judgment against . . . party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.” § 768.81 . . . In Fabre, the supreme court construed section 768.81 and wrote: “Clearly, the only means of determining . . . necessary for a jury to receive jury instructions and a verdict form to decide the case pursuant to section 768.81 . . . necessary for a jury to receive jury instructions and a verdict form to decide the case pursuant to section 768.81 . . .