Kuhn v. Harless

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 12, 1980

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1980-11-12

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1981

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Does the entry of a default against a defendant for violation of discovery orders in a negligence action preclude that defendant from reducing the amount of his liability by proof of the plaintiff's comparative negligence?”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Harless v. Kuhn

Relies on 390 So. 2d 721 - Kuhn v. Harless

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-11-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MOORE, Judge.

¶1Upon consideration of the appellees’ petition for rehearing and appellant’s response, we find the question presented by this appeal one of great public importance. Accordingly, we adhere to our original opinion, 390 So.2d 721, and certify the following question to the Supreme Court as one of great public importance:

DOES THE ENTRY OF A DEFAULT AGAINST A DEFENDANT FOR VIOLATION OF DISCOVERY ORDERS IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION PRECLUDE *724THAT DEFENDANT FROM REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF HIS LIABILITY BY PROOF OF THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE?

ANSTEAD, J., and JAMES C. DAUKSCH, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.