Kuhn v. Harless, 390 So. 2d 723

MOORE, Judge.

Upon 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.

Case Details

Case Name: Kuhn v. Harless

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Nov 12, 1980

Citations: 390 So. 2d 723; 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17603; No. 77-1995

Docket Number: No. 77-1995

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.