WALT DISNEY WORLD CO. v. WOOD Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A defendant found 1% at fault for an injury was held liable for 86% of the plaintiff’s damages under the doctrine of joint and several liability. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, declining to judicially abolish the doctrine and deferring any changes to the legislature.
Legal Significance: This case affirmed the survival of the common law doctrine of joint and several liability in Florida, even after the state’s judicial adoption of pure comparative negligence, holding that any modification to the doctrine was a matter for legislative, not judicial, action.
WALT DISNEY WORLD CO. v. WOOD Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Aloysia Wood was injured at a Walt Disney World (Disney) attraction when her fiancé, Daniel Wood, rammed the vehicle she was driving from behind. Aloysia Wood sued Disney for negligence, and Disney filed a third-party claim against Daniel Wood for contribution. At trial, the jury allocated fault among the parties: 14% to the plaintiff Aloysia Wood, 85% to her fiancé Daniel Wood, and 1% to Disney. The jury assessed the plaintiff’s total damages at $75,000. Applying the doctrine of joint and several liability, the trial court entered judgment against Disney for 86% of the damages, representing the combined fault of both tortfeasors (1% for Disney and 85% for Daniel Wood). Disney’s liability was reduced by the plaintiff’s 14% comparative fault, but it was held responsible for the entire share of the other tortfeasor. Disney moved to limit its liability to its 1% share of fault, arguing that the principles of comparative negligence should abrogate joint and several liability. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed, certifying the question to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the judicial adoption of pure comparative negligence require the abrogation of the common law doctrine of joint and several liability, thereby limiting a tortfeasor’s liability to its apportioned percentage of fault?
No. The court held that the adoption of pure comparative negligence does Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla par
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the judicial adoption of pure comparative negligence require the abrogation of the common law doctrine of joint and several liability, thereby limiting a tortfeasor’s liability to its apportioned percentage of fault?
Conclusion
This decision established that in Florida, the shift to comparative negligence did Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure do
Legal Rule
In a jurisdiction that has adopted pure comparative negligence, the common law Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehend
Legal Analysis
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, choosing to retain Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ve
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The doctrine of joint and several liability survives the judicial adoption