KENNETH WATERS AND GUY SKIPPER, APPELLANTS,
v.
NETTIE WILLIAMS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Waters and Skipper appealed a trial court order granting a new trial on damages after the court directed a verdict against them on liability in a rear-end collision case. The appellate court reversed, holding that the defendant's evidence of brake failure rebutted the presumption of negligence and should have gone to the jury.
The trial court erred in directing a verdict on liability. Evidence of brake failure was sufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence and required the issue of negligence to be submitted to the jury.
[1] A presumption of negligence against a defendant who rear-ends a stopped plaintiff's vehicle is rebutted when the defendant presents evidence of brake failure.
[2] Evidence of brake failure, if it fairly and reasonably tends to show the absence of negligence, dissipates the presumption of negligence and makes the issue of negligence…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“where a defendant runs into the rear of a plaintiffs automobile while plaintiff is stopped for a traffic light, there is a presumption of negligence of the defendant on which the plaintiff would be entitled to recover in the absence of explanation by the defendant”
Establishes the legal standard for rear-end collision cases and the presumption that applies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant drove into the rear of Appellee's automobile while Appellee was stopped at a traffic light. Appellant presented evidence that he experienced…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse New Trial On Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from an order of the trial court granting Appellee’s motion for new trial as to damages following a directed verdict ruling on liability. Appellants make two arguments on appeal: (1) that the trial court erred in granting a new trial on damages, and (2) that the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s motion for directed verdict on liability. We hold that the trial court erred in directing a verdict on liability. We do not, therefore, need to address the first issue raised. We reverse and remand for a new trial as to both liability and damages.
The law is well established that where a defendant runs into the rear of a plaintiffs automobile while plaintiff is stopped for a traffic light, there is a presumption of negligence of the defendant on which the plaintiff would be entitled to recover in the absence of explanation by the defendant. Pensacola Transit Co. v. Denton, 119 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). When the defendant introduces evidence which fairly and reasonably tends to show that the real fact is not as presumed, then the impact of the presumption is dissipated and the issue of negligence becomes a jury question. Gulle v. Boggs, 174 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1965).
Here, the law raised a presumption that Appellant was negligent when he drove into the rear of Appellee’s car. Appellant, however, effectively rebutted this presumption by presenting evidence that he experienced brake failure as he attempted to stop. Such evidence was sufficient for the jury to properly infer a lack of negligence on Appellant’s part. See, e.g., Gulle, 174 So. 2d at 27 (defendant’s evidence that his brakes failed and that he had no alternate course of action but to collide with plaintiff rebutted the presumption of negligence and required the issue to be presented to the jury); Pensacola Transit Co., 119 So. 2d at 297 (defendant’s testimony that his brakes “didn’t take” and did not function was sufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence and send the issue to the jury). Thus, the trial court erred in removing the negligence question from the jury-
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND the case for a new trial on the issues of Appellants’ liability and damages.
BOOTH, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunter v. Ward, 812 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…CA 1985). The rear driver can rebut this presumption by presenting evidence that “fairly and reasonably tends to show” that the presumption of negligence is misplaced. See Gulle v. Boggs, 174 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1965); see also Waters v. [*603] Williams, 696 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The Florida Supreme Court has further clarified the presumption of negligence in rear-end collisions in two recent cases: Clampitt, 786 So. 2d at 570 and Eppler v. Tarmac America, Inc., 752 So. 2d 592 (Fla.2000). In Clampitt, t…
-
D.J. Spencer Sales v. Colletta P. Clampitt, 704 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…ntered final judgment, awarding appellee damages in the amount of $842,997.00, to be paid by appellants. In rear-end collision cases, a rebutta-ble presumption of negligence arises and attaches to the driver of the rear vehicle. Waters v. Williams, 696 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Eppler v. Tarmac America, Inc., 695 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Davis v. Chips Express, Inc., 676 So. 2d 984, 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Johnson v. Deep South Crane Rentals, Inc., 634 So. 2d 1113, 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Edw…1 / 2
-
Murray v. Schreiner, 825 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…id of the presumption. At this point the entire matter should be deposited with the trier of facts to reconcile the conflicts and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. 174 So. 2d at 28-29. In Waters v. Williams, 696 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), the defendant struck the rear of the plaintiffs car while the plaintiff was stopped at a light. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The First District reversed the order directing a verdict finding that…
Authorities Cited
- Gulle v. Purley L. Boggs, 174 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1965)
- Pensacola Transit Co., Inc. v. Denton, 119 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)