Florida Personal Injury Law Reference
This page collects the Florida statutes that most often decide the timing and value of a personal injury case.
Deadlines That End Cases
Florida Statutes section 95.11
Statute of limitations for negligence
For negligence causes of action accruing on or after March 24, 2023, suit must be filed within two years. That is the product of House Bill 837, which cut the previous four-year period in half; claims that accrued before that date keep the old four-year window. Wrongful death actions carry their own two-year period, which HB 837 did not change.
PRACTICE NOTE Which regime applies turns on the accrual date, not the filing date. For any injury near the March 2023 line, calendar both deadlines and treat the shorter one as controlling until proven otherwise. Two years disappears quickly when treatment is ongoing.
Fault and Recovery
Florida Statutes section 768.81
Modified comparative fault; the fifty percent bar
Contributory fault reduces the plaintiff’s recovery in proportion to the plaintiff’s share of fault, but a party found greater than 50 percent at fault for their own harm recovers nothing at all. The bar does not apply to medical negligence actions under chapter 766. This too came from House Bill 837, which replaced Florida’s longstanding pure comparative system.
PRACTICE NOTE The single point between 50 and 51 percent is now the whole case. Fault allocation fights that were once about reducing a number are existential in Florida, so witness preservation, scene evidence, and early accident reconstruction carry far more weight than they did before 2023.
Case Law That Shapes Florida Injury Cases
Hoffman v. Jones
280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973) [Adkins, J.]
The decision that ended contributory negligence in Florida. For nearly a century, any negligence by the injured person, however slight, barred recovery completely. Hoffman adopted pure comparative negligence by judicial decision, holding that liability should be apportioned in proportion to fault, abolishing last clear chance, and rejecting the argument that only the legislature could make the change. The opinion also settled that district courts of appeal cannot overrule Florida Supreme Court precedent.
PRACTICE NOTE Hoffman built the foundation the legislature later remodeled: the pure system it adopted was eventually codified, then converted to a modified system with a greater-than-50-percent bar by House Bill 837 in 2023. The case still matters because everything in Florida fault allocation, from jury apportionment to setoff mechanics, descends from it.
McCain v. Florida Power Corp.
593 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1992) [Kogan, J.]
Florida’s framework for duty and proximate cause. Duty is a question of law measured by whether the defendant’s conduct created a foreseeable zone of risk of the general type of harm; proximate cause is a question of fact about whether the specific injury was foreseeable; and courts may not merge the two inquiries. Where reasonable people could differ on whether the specific injury was genuinely foreseeable or a freak occurrence, the question belongs to the jury. Applying that framework, the court reinstated a jury verdict for a trencher operator shocked after the power company marked his dig area as safe.
PRACTICE NOTE McCain is the answer when a defendant tries to convert a jury question into a legal one by arguing it could not have foreseen the exact accident. The duty inquiry asks only whether the conduct created a general zone of risk; the rest belongs to the jury, and a directed verdict or summary judgment built on specific-injury foreseeability is usually error under this framework.
Fabre v. Marin
623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993) [Grimes, J.]
Interpreting the comparative fault statute, the court held that fault must be apportioned among every person who contributed to the accident, whether or not they are, or even can be, parties to the lawsuit. A defendant’s judgment reflects only that defendant’s own percentage of the total fault, so a plaintiff takes each defendant as they find them. The nonparties who appear on verdict forms as a result are known statewide as Fabre defendants.
PRACTICE NOTE Every multi-defendant and phantom-driver case in Florida runs through Fabre. Expect defendants to name empty chairs: the uninsured driver, the settled party, the immune employer. Build the proof to keep fault concentrated on the parties who can actually pay, because the fight over who gets on the verdict form is often worth more than the damages fight.
On the Docket for the Next Review
Coming in future updates:
- Florida Statutes section 627.4137 insurer disclosure obligations
- Florida Statutes section 624.155 civil remedy notices and insurer bad faith
- Appellate decisions construing House Bill 837 as the case law develops
This reference states general principles of Florida law for informational purposes. It is not legal advice, it does not address the facts of any particular case, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case law and statutes change; always confirm current authority before relying on it. For advice about a specific matter, contact Stuck Law Firm, APLC for a free consultation.
Questions About a Florida Case? Call (407) 630-8692
Last reviewed: August 20, 2026