Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Plaintiff testified that he had been doing the same type of work at the same place where he was injured for more than seventeen years without prior injury. *871 Subsequently, at the conference on instruction, the trial court and parties agreed that the jury be charged in the language of Florida Statute § 769.03, F.S.A., which provides as follows: "The persons mentioned in § 769.01 [persons engaged in hazardous occupations] shall not be liable in damages for injuries to their agents and employees, or for the death of such agents and employees, where same is done by their consent, or is caused by their own negligence....

...re read to the jury did not sufficiently inform the Court of its error and the judgment was affirmed. Under the Butler holding, plaintiff in the instant case would be unable to assign as error the trial court's omission of the last *872 half of F.S. § 769.03, F.S.A., from the charge to the jury....

...he result sought by the initial solicitation, such as obtaining someone as a prostitute for a third party." Id. at 276. In Register, the defense relied on Barber v. State, 397 So.2d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), which held that "the underlying purpose of section 769.03 ......

...It appears that in a chambers discussion, the trial court admitted, in a discussion of charges, that contributory negligence would not be an absolute bar to recovery, but in giving his instructions to the jury, the judge gave only the first sentence of Section 769.03, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., by charging the jury that: “The Florida Statute under which this case is being tried provides that persons engaged in the express business shall not be liable in damages for injuries to their employees where the same is caused by their own negligence.” The second sentence of Section 769.03 provides that if the express company and the employee are both “at fault,” there may be a recovery, but the amount of the recovery shall be such a proportion of the entire damages sustained, as the defendant’s negligence bears to the combined negligence of both the plaintiff and defendant....

...The Capone court cited Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Fulmer, 227 So.2d 870 (Fla.1969), and cases cited in that opinion. In Fulmer , the supreme court had found fundamental error because the trial court had omitted from the charge, after agreeing to include the language of section 769.03, Florida Statutes, the hazardous occupations law, that portion of the section that discusses comparative negligence of plaintiff and defendant and also states a fellow-servant exception....