In Florida, there is comparative fault, which means that if a defendant is found negligent for an accident, the jury can consider the fault of the injured person and apportion some fault to them. A classic comparative fault argument is where the defendant argues that the hazardous condition that the injured person fell on was “open and obvious” and especially if the fall was during the day, that it could have been seen. The argument basically is that if the plaintiff had been paying attention, they would have seen the hazardous condition and not been injured. Now, if a jury would find some fault on the plaintiff (injured person) they would have to apportion fault. So if they found that the business establishment was at fault, that the total damages were $40,000.00 but that the plaintiff was 25 percent at fault for not seeing the hazardous condition, then the judgment would be for $30,000.00 ($40,000 minus 25 percent). So yes, if a jury finds negligence on the business establishment, they can also find fault on the injured person and that percentage fault reduces the verdict accordingly.
Of course, every case is unique and has to be judged based on the facts of the case. The advice in this blog is intended to be general in nature and should not to be construed as specific advice for a case, as the most slight difference in the facts could ultimately change the result. Also, this blog is based on Florida law and the laws of any other states or countries could vary significantly from Florida.
