Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

negligenceappealtrialcomparative negligence

Related Cases

Bongiorno v. Americorp, Inc., 159 So.3d 1027, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D760

Facts

Jennifer Bongiorno filed a negligence complaint against Americorp after she slipped and fell on a slippery bathroom floor in the office building where she worked. The trial court found both parties equally negligent, attributing 50% of the fault to Bongiorno for wearing high-heeled shoes. Bongiorno contested this finding, arguing that there was no evidence to support the claim that her footwear contributed to her injuries.

Bongiorno filed a negligence complaint against Americorp (the property owner) which averred that she injured herself when she entered a restroom on the third floor of the subject property (the office building where Bongiorno worked) and slipped on the unusually slippery floor. The complaint alleged that, as a direct and proximate result of Americorp's negligence, Bongiorno was injured.

Issue

Did the trial court err in finding Jennifer Bongiorno 50% comparatively negligent for her slip and fall injuries due to her wearing high heels?

1 Bongiorno argues that the trial court reversibly erred in finding her comparatively negligent for the injuries resulting from her slip and fall. She argues there were no facts of record that support the trial court's finding that she was negligent for wearing high heels to work. We agree.

Rule

Comparative negligence is an affirmative defense, and the party asserting it bears the burden of proving that the negligence of the other party was a cause of the accident.

Comparative negligence is an affirmative defense; thus, the party asserting the defense bears the burden of proving that the negligence of the other party was a cause of the accident.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Americorp met its burden of proving that Bongiorno's choice to wear high-heeled shoes created a foreseeable zone of risk. The court found that Americorp did not provide sufficient evidence to show that Bongiorno's footwear contributed to her fall, and thus the trial court's finding of comparative negligence was erroneous.

Americorp failed to sustain its burden of proving that Bongiorno created a foreseeable zone of risk by wearing high-heeled shoes to work and, therefore, the trial court erred in finding her comparatively negligent for her injuries.

Conclusion

The District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for entry of a judgment in Bongiorno's favor without any reduction for comparative negligence.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of a judgment in Bongiorno's favor without the reduction for her alleged comparative negligence.

Who won?

Jennifer Bongiorno prevailed in the case because the appellate court found that the trial court erred in attributing comparative negligence to her based on her choice of footwear.

The District Court of Appeal, Palmer, J., held that worker was not comparatively negligent based on fact that she wore high-heeled shoes to work.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Vogreg v. Shepard Ambulance Co., 47 Wash.2d 659, 289 P.2d 350

Anderson v. Christopherson, 816 N.W.2d 626

Warner v. McCaughan, 77 Wash.2d 178, 460 P.2d 272

Griffin v. The Haunted Hotel, Inc., 242 Cal.App.4th 490, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 830, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12,491, 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,569

Taylor v. Olsen, 282 Or. 343, 578 P.2d 779