Blackburn v. Dorta

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “We find no discernible basis analytically or historically to maintain a distinction between the affirmative defense of contributory negligence and assumption of risk.”
• “[T]he affirmative defense of implied assumption of risk is merged into . . . the principles of comparative negligence . . . .”
• assumption of risk merged with comparative negligence; primary assumption of risk abolished
• common law doctrine of assumption of risk now merged into comparative negligence analysis
• implied assumption of risk rejected as complete bar to recovery
• “There is little to commend this doctrine of [Type 3] assumption of risk, and our research discloses no Florida case in which it has been applied.... [T]here is no reason supported by law or justice in this state to give credence to such a principle of law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).