## Facts

- Aloysia Wood was injured in November 1971 while driving on Walt Disney World’s Grand Prix attraction when her fiancé, Daniel Wood, struck her vehicle from behind.
- Wood sued Walt Disney World Co. for negligence.
- Disney filed a third-party claim seeking contribution from Daniel Wood as a joint tortfeasor.
- The jury found total damages of $75,000 and apportioned fault as 14% to Wood, 85% to Daniel Wood, and 1% to Disney.
- Applying then-existing joint and several liability principles (with reduction for plaintiff’s comparative fault), the trial court entered judgment against Disney for 86% of the damages; Disney’s motion to limit the judgment to its 1% share was denied.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed based on controlling Florida precedent and certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida’s adoption of pure comparative negligence required limiting a defendant’s liability to its percentage of fault, thereby displacing joint and several liability.
2. Whether prior Florida precedent required affirmance of a judgment holding a 1%-at-fault defendant liable for the remaining recoverable damages attributable to a co-tortfeasor.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held that Florida’s adoption of comparative negligence did not abolish joint and several liability among joint tortfeasors.
- The court reaffirmed prior precedent permitting an injured plaintiff (after reduction for the plaintiff’s own comparative negligence) to recover the balance from any jointly liable defendant, who may then pursue contribution from other tortfeasors.
- The trial court properly entered judgment against Disney for 86% of the damages (Daniel Wood’s 85% plus Disney’s 1%).

## Legal Principles

- Comparative negligence reduces a plaintiff’s recovery by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault but does not, by itself, convert joint and several liability into purely several (proportionate) liability.
- Under joint and several liability, each defendant whose negligence is a legal cause of the injury may be held liable for the full amount of the plaintiff’s recoverable damages, leaving allocation among tortfeasors to contribution.
- Retaining joint and several liability reflects a policy choice that the risk of an insolvent or judgment-proof tortfeasor is borne by liable defendants rather than the injured plaintiff.
- Major restructuring of joint and several liability in a comparative negligence system is a policy determination typically left to the legislature absent controlling constitutional or statutory direction.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court held that comparative negligence in Florida coexisted with joint and several liability, so a defendant found only 1% at fault could still be responsible for paying the remaining recoverable damages attributable to a more at-fault co-tortfeasor, subject to contribution rights.


Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood, 515 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1987)