LYNX TRANSPORTATION, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL ATKINSON, 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.
Lynx Transportation appeals a jury verdict finding it liable for injuries sustained by Michael Atkinson in a bus-automobile accident. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Lynx failed to preserve its argument regarding jury instructions about a rebuttable presumption of negligence by not raising the proper legal basis for the objection at trial.
The appellate court held that Lynx failed to preserve the presumption issue for appeal because it did not raise the proper legal argument at trial. A rebuttable presumption of negligence may be used when considering a motion for directed verdict, but once that motion is denied and the case is submitted to the jury, the jury must deliberate without the presumption based on all evidence presented. The jury pool selection challenge was likewise not preserved.
[1] A jury should not be instructed on a rebuttable presumption of negligence after a motion for directed verdict has been denied and the matter is submitted to the jury.
[2] A party must preserve an issue for appellate review by raising it with the trial court on the specific grounds intended for appeal.
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“when the motion is denied and the matter is submitted to the jury, the jury must deliberate without the aid of the presumption and must determine whether Lynx was negligent from all of the evidence presented”
Establishes the legal rule that a rebuttable presumption of negligence in rear-end collision cases applies only at the directed verdict stage, not when the case goes to the jury
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Lynx bus struck the rear of Michael Atkinson's automobile. The bus driver testified that there was no actual contact, stating he 'just came to rest …
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 Rebuttable Presumption Of Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Lynx Transportation appeals a final judgment after a jury found that it was responsible for injuries received by Michael Atkinson in a bus-automobile accident. Lynx argues on appeal that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that a rebuttable presumption of negligence was ;reated when the Lynx bus hit the rear of Atkinson’s automobile. Lynx correctly states that the presumption exists when the trial court considers a motion for directed verdict, but when the motion is denied and the matter is submitted to the jury, the jury must deliberate without the aid of the presumption and must determine whether Lynx was negligent from all of the evidence presented. Gulle v. Boggs, 174 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1965); Eppler v. Tarmac America, Inc., 695 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. granted, 705 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1997) (Table, No. 91,066); Kao v. Lauredo, 617 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Pierce v. Progressive American Ins. Co., 582 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 591 So. 2d 183 (Fla.1991); Tozier v. Jarvis, 469 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Baker v. Deeks, 176 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 183 So. 2d 213 (Fla.1965).
Lynx, however, did not make this argument below; it only objected to the instruction because the bus driver testified that “technically there was no contact, he just came to rest against [Atkinson’s] bumper.... To give this instruction would skew and add more facts that are not here and the jury has not heard because the plaintiff doesn’t have them.” Lynx did not advise the trial court that the giving of this instruc tion would be improper where the court had already determined that Atkinson was not entitled to a directed verdict. Tozier at 886 (“Once the presumption is overcome, it vanishes; the jury is not instructed upon it.”).
Hence, it failed to preserve the issue for consideration by this court. Jaffe v. Endure-A-Life Time Awning Sales, Inc., 98 So. 2d 77 (Fla.1957)(question as to the proper law to be applied could not be considered for the first time on appeal); Clock v. Clock, 649 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(an appellate court will not consider any ground for objection not presented to the trial court; review is limited to the specific grounds raised below); Perez v. Winn-Dixie, 639 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(as a general rule, the failure to object or argue a specific point before the lower tribunal will preclude appellate review of that particular point); W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. Dougherty, 636 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (an appellate court may consider objections only on grounds specifically stated at trial, and when the appellant raises a different ground on appeal, the point is not preserved), rev. denied, 645 So. 2d 457 (Fla.1994).1
We likewise reject Lynx’s challenge to the manner in which the jury pool was selected, an issue it attempts to raise for the first time in this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . Jaffe, Clock, Perez, and Dougherty were not cited by the parties.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aills v. Luciano Boemi, M.D., 29 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 2010)…ard on appeal.’ ” Chamberlain v. State, 881 So. 2d 1087, 1100 (Fla.2004) (quoting Spann v. State, 857 So. 2d 845, 852 (Fla.2003)). Appellate review is therefore limited to the specific grounds for objection raised at trial. Lynx Transp. v. Atkinson, 720 So. 2d 600, 600-01 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Clock v. Clock, 649 So. 2d 312, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Wilson v. Health Trust, Inc., 640 So. 2d 93, 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Except in cases of fundamental error, an appellate court cannot consider any ground for objecti…
-
Samuel J. Goss, D.O. v. Permenter, 827 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…So. 2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), rev. denied, 658 So. 2d 992 (Fla.1995). However, defense counsel did not object to the aggravation instruction on that ground, and thus this issue is not preserved for appellate review. Lynx Transportation v. Atkinson, 720 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). We also agree with appellees that their counsel sufficiently established a basis for the giving of this instruction. See Holy Cross Hospital, Inc. v. Marrone, 816 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (plaintiffs allegation that doct…
-
A.L.H. v. State, 205 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…Unfortunately for A.L.H., the police report is not in our record and we must eschew speculation as to whát the report said and whether A.L.H. studied it. We are bound by the record and arguments made in the trial court. See Lynx Transp. v. Atkinson, 720 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Based on what is before us, we are compelled to affirm the rulings of the trial court. Affirmed. SLEET and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur. . The police report is not in our record.…
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Gulle v. Purley L. Boggs, 174 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1965)
- Pierce v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 582 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Gertrude Tozier v. Jarvis, 469 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- W.R. Grace & Co. - Conn. v. Dougherty, 636 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Perez v. Winn-Dixie & Crawford & Co., 639 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Jaffe v. Endure-A-Life Time Awning Sales, Inc., 98 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1957)
- KAO v. Lauredo, 617 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Clock v. Vikki Clock, 649 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Eppler v. Tarmac Am., Inc., 695 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Baker v. Enid I. Deeks, 176 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)