Griffis v. Wheeler
18 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (July)
The personal representative of a pedestrian’s estate filed suit against defendants, who he said were negligently operating their vehicle when they struck the pedestrian and killed him. The defendants defended this claim by alleging comparative negligence, as the pedestrian’s blood-alcohol level was above a .08 at the time of the accident. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, but the district court reversed holding that a reasonable jury could have determined that the defendants did not live up to their duty to be reasonable, prudent drivers and seek to avoid hitting the pedestrian. The district court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the intoxication defense spelled out in section 768.36, Florida Statutes, barred the pedestrian’s estate from recovering for wrongful death just as it would have barred the pedestrian’s recovery for another tort had he lived.