3d DCA Watch -- Fabre Happens.

Yo ho yo ho a Fabre's life for me.

Dig it:

Regions Bank v. Capital Square:
We conclude that the trial court’s refusal to give Fabre instructions to the jury mandates a new trial, but solely as to the issue of apportionment of fault. We follow Nash, in concluding that a reversal precipitated by Fabre errors does not affect the determination of damages and should not require a new trial on damages. In Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Viera, 693 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), the Third District Court of Appeal limited the new trial solely to the issue of apportionment between the parties and the non-party defendants, stating that, “where a jury has been prevented from properly considering apportionment because a Fabre non-party was erroneously omitted from the verdict form, the solution is a new trial limited to the apportionment issue, not a new trial on all liability issues.” Id. at 1108; Nash, 678 So. 2d at 1263-64. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial solely on the issue of apportionment between the parties and non-parties, where the non-party accounting firms must be included on the verdict form.
Once more, with feeling.

Zarate v. Deutch Bank.

You really need a record to do an appeal.

Yo ho yo ho......


  1. Nice clip!

    "Drink up, me 'erties...."

    Like that line-- esp. when Captain Jack Sparrow says it. :)

  2. Nice information, many thanks to the author. It is incomprehensible to me now, but in general, the usefulness and significance is overwhelming. Thanks again and good luck!

  3. Good share of this nice post. Thanks for sharing.
    hermes birkin


Post a Comment