Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: e, would occur but for the failure to exercise reasonable care. In so ruling, we find this case to be, as McDougald notes, one of those rare instances where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur [**5] should be applied. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n1 See also Justice Anstead's concurring opinion in McDougald that cited to the wellknown 1863 case of Byrne v. Boadle, 2 H. & C. 722, 159 Eng. Rep. 299 (Ex. 1863), in which a pedestrian was struck by a barrel which fell from a window of the defendant's flour business. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [*161] II. OFFER OF JUDGMENT Prior to trial, Gauldin extended an offer of judgment in the amount of $ 50,000 to the Strahans collectively. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(3) states: A proposal may be made by or to any party or parties and by or to any combination of parties properly identified in the proposal. A joint proposal shall state the amount and terms attributable to each party. (Emphasis added). The Strahans, citing to McFarland & Son, Inc. v. Basel, 727 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), rev. denied, No. 95,408 (Fla. Sept. 15, 1999), claim that the trial court should not have awarded fees because Gauldin failed to allocate an amount for which he [**6] was willing to settle with respect to each of the co-defendants. In McFarland, the plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident and sued the driver of the automobile in which the plaintiff was a passenger, sued the driver of the other vehicle, and sued the employer of the driver of the other vehicle. The complaint against the employer alleged negligent hiring and/or training. The plaintiff made a single offer of judgment to all three defendants jointly. This court agreed with the trial court's decision not to award fees because the offer made to the three defendants did not state the amount of the offer attributable to each party. We do not agree with the Strahans that McFarland controls the result in this case. An important difference between McFarland and the instant case is that in McFarland, liability, pursuant to the allegations of the complaint,...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online