This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Three cases were consolidated before the Court. The District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Dorta v. Blackburn, 302 So.2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), found that the doctrine of assumption of risk is still viable as an absolute bar to recovery subsequent to the adoption of the rule of comparative negligence. On the same point of law, the District Court of Appeal, First District, in Parker v. Maule Industries, Inc., 321 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); and the Fourth District in Rea v. Leadership Housing, Inc., 312 So.2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), reached contrary conclusions. Subsequent to entertaining these consolidated cases, the District Court of Appeal, First District, decided Smith v. Carter, 338 So.2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Hambrick v. Jackson, 333 So.2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); and Manassa v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 332 So.2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In addition, the District Court of Appeal, Second District, decided Hall v. Holton, 330 So.2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Each of these last cited decisions rejects the continued viability of assumption of risk as a complete bar to recovery.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.