This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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.
- Spring '08