RAFAEL MANUEL MORERA, JR. AND RAFAEL MANUEL MORERA, SR., APPELLANTS,
v.
PETRONA ELBA CASTELLON, ROBERTO CASTELLON AND ELBA CASTELLON, APPELLEES
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.
In this negligence case arising from a 1991 auto accident at an intersection with a stop sign, the appellate court reversed the jury's verdict in favor of the defendant Castellón and remanded for a new trial, finding the verdict contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence given Castellón's clear duty to stop and yield.
The court held that the jury verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and that Castellón was at least partially negligent as a matter of law because she had an undisputed duty to make a complete stop at the stop sign, look for oncoming traffic, and yield the right of way to Morera, Jr. who had the right of way.
[1] A jury verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence when it is not supported by the evidence presented.
[2] A driver approaching a stop sign has a duty to make a complete stop, look for oncoming traffic, and yield the right of way.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Castellón was at least partially negligent as she had a duty to make a complete stop at the stop sign, look for oncoming traffic, and yield the right of way.”
Establishes the court's holding that Castellón's legal duties were clear and undisputed as a matter of law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 13, 1991, at 8:25 a.m., 16-year-old Morera, Jr. was driving a 1986 Mustang on 187th Terrace at approximately 30 mph with the right of way whe…
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 Manifest Weight Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
SORONDO, Judge.
Rafael Manuel Morera, Jr. and Rafael Manuel Morera, Sr. (collectively Morera), appeal from the lower court’s final judgment in favor of Petrona Elba Castellón, Roberto Castellón and Elba Castellón (collectively Castellón).
At about 8:25 a.m. on March 13, 1991, Morera, Jr. (plaintiff below) and Petrona Castellón were involved in an auto accident at the intersection of 187th Terrace and 124th Avenue in Miami-Dade County. Mor-era, Jr. was driving a 1986 Mustang on 187th Terrace with the right of way and Castellón was on 124th Avenue, which had a stop sign. Morera, Jr., who was 16 years old at the time, testified that he was headed towards school and driving about 30 miles per hour. As he was about a car length from the intersection, he saw a car approaching the stop sign that slowed down for a few seconds but continued through the sign and jumped in front of him. Morera, Jr. braked and swerved to attempt to avoid the accident, but collided with Castellon’s car. After the impact, Morera, Jr.’s ear went off the road and hit a tree.
Armando Rodriguez, a friend of Morera, Jr., testified that he was driving behind Mor-era, Jr.’s ear on the way to school. Rodriguez was going approximately 25 miles per hour and he estimated that Morera, Jr. was driving the same speed because he did not pull away from him. Rodriguez was approximately one block away but did not see Cas-tellon’s car before Morera, Jr. swerved to try to avoid the impact.
Castellón testified that she was going 20 miles per hour prior to the stop sign. She stopped, looked both ways and did not see an oncoming vehicle. When she started into the intersection Castellón saw, “something, a car moving faster than like a plane toward me.” She braked, Morera, Jr.’s car struck her, she lost control of her vehicle, turned 180 degrees to the other side, and was “moving everywhere.”1
We agree with Morera that a new trial is appropriate because the jury verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Castellón was at least partially negligent as she had a duty to make a complete stop at the stop sign, look for oncoming traffic, and yield the right of way. See Pierce v. Nicholson Supply Company Inc., 676 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
We reverse and remand for a new trial.
. The evidence is undisputed that it was Castel-Ion who broadsided Morera, Jr.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Goldberg, 856 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
-
Nat'l Healthcorp Ltd. P'ship v. Cascio, 725 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…w trial on the issue of manifest weight of the evidence is not easy. On the other hand, appellate courts regularly assess this issue and occasionally grant a new trial based exclusively upon the cold appellate record. See, e.g., Morera v. Castellon, 716 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Ramey v. Winn Dixie Montgomery, Inc., 710 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Sparks-Book v. Sports Auth., Inc., 699 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Pierce v. Nicholson Supply Co., 676 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Shadow Lakes, Inc.…
Authorities Cited
- Pierce v. Nicholson Supply Co., Inc., 676 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)