What are Fabre defendants?
A Fabre defendant is a third party who may be partially responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries but whom the plaintiff did not “name” in the lawsuit (most likely because the plaintiff was unaware of the Fabre defendant’s involvement). The term “Fabre defendant” comes from a 1993 case called Fabre v.
What is the Fabre doctrine?
Some time ago, the Florida Supreme Court established what is known as the Fabre Doctrine, which is a method by which a defendant may try to blame all or part of your damages on some other individual or entity, a non-party to the lawsuit, thereby avoiding being forced to pay all or part of your damages.
Does Florida have comparative fault?
Florida recognizes pure comparative negligence. (Note that Florida does have a no-fault insurance rule; that is separate from comparative fault in personal injury cases). Pure comparative fault allows the injured party to collect damages that are proportional to their percentage of fault.
Does Florida have joint and several liability?
Effective April 26, 2006, the Florida Legislature eliminated the last vestige of joint and several liability. [1] Florida has now joined the minority of jurisdictions that have completely abolished joint and several liability. Although this move has brought dramatic change and controversy, it was no surprise.
Who is a Fabre defendant in a negligence case?
I want to discuss the concept of a “Fabre defendant.” This is an important concept in negligence cases, particularly personal injury and property damage cases. “A ‘Fabre defendant’ is a nonparty defendant whom a party defendant asserts is wholly of partially responsible for the negligence alleged [by the plaintiff].” Salazar v.
What’s the burden of proof in a Fabre case?
The burden of proof is on the named defendant to prove the nonparty’s negligence at trial to get that nonparty on the verdict form as a Fabre defendant. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v.
What was the purpose of the Fabre doctrine?
The court reasoned that there “is nothing inherently fair” about forcing defendants “to pay more than their fair share of the loss.” Moreover, if the driver had been the plaintiff’s friend and not her husband, the friend would not have been immune from liability. The court’s goal was to level the playing field for all defendants.
What did the Florida Supreme Court decide in Fabre v Marin?
The “Fabre Doctrine”. In 1993, the Florida Supreme Court considered Fabre v. Marin, a case where the plaintiff was injured in an accident while riding as a passenger in a car that her husband was driving. Even though the jury found the husband 50 percent at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries, the jury did not reduce the defendant’s liability.
