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 THAT 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.