PATRICIA ANNE COOPER AND GEORGIA M. COOPER, AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
YELLOW CAB CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
This case involves a rear-end automobile collision where the plaintiff's vehicle was struck while stopped to make a left turn. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant taxi company, but the appellate court reversed based on intervening precedent establishing that a rear-end collision creates a presumption of negligence.
The judgment directing a verdict for the defendant was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial because the facts were analogous to McNulty v. Cusack and Shedden v. Yellow Cab Company of Miami, which established that a rear-end collision creates a presumption of negligence against the striking vehicle.
“The court below directed a verdict in favor of the appellee for the reason that there was no proof of negligence on the part of the appellee's driver but only proof that an accident occurred.”
Explains the trial court's rationale for the directed verdict that the appellate court found erroneous.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff's automobile was stopped in a traffic lane with her left turn signal activated and arm extended, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear b…
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 Personal Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
This was an action for personal injuries sustained by the appellant as a result of a rear-end automobile collision. At the conclusion of the appellants’ case, the court, upon appellee’s motion, directed a verdict in favor of the appellee, and a judgment was subsequently entered thereon, from which this appeal was taken.
The evidence adduced at the trial discloses that the appellant’s automobile had stopped in a lane of traffic preparatory to making a left turn and the appellant had indicated her intention to make a left turn by extending her arm and through the operation of a left blinker signal on her automobile. While the appellant’s automobile was stopped to allow oncoming traffic to clear in order that she could make a left turn, her automobile was struck from the rear by a taxicab owned by the appellee. The appellant testified that she did not see the appellee’s cab before it struck her automobile, nor did she have any knowledge of any acts on the part of the driver of the appellee’s cab prior to the collision. The court below directed a verdict in favor of the appellee for the reason that there was no proof of negligence on the part of the appellee’s driver but only proof that an accident occurred. Likewise, there was no proof or evidence of any negligent act on the part of the appellant prior to the collision.
Obviously the trial judge at the time of the direction of the verdict and the entry of the judgment thereon was without benefit of the decision in the case of McNulty *437v. Cusack, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 785. Likewise, he was unaware of the decision of this court in Shedden v. Yellow Cab Company of Miami, Fla.App. 1958, 105 So. 2d 388, wherein we followed the holding in the McNulty case. The facts in the Mc-Nulty and Shedden cases appear to be analogous to the facts in the case at bar. Therefore, the decisions in the aforesaid cases are conclusive of the questions presented on this appeal.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., HORTON, J., and STURGIS, WALLACE E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gulle v. Purley L. Boggs, 174 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1965)…table presumption and not a mere justifiable inference of negligence. The McNulty conclusion was approved by the Court of Appeal, Third District, in Shedden et al. v. Yellow Cab Co. of Miami, 105 So. 2d 388 and Cooper et al. v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 106 So. 2d 436. The rule of McNulty was given approval by the Supreme Court in Bellere et al. v. Madsen, 114 So. 2d 619, 80 A.L.R.2d 1 and by the Court of Appeal, First District in Pensacola Transit Co. v. Denton, supra. The so-called rebuttable presumption rule a…
-
Kimenker v. Greater Miami CAR Rental, Inc., 115 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…the case to go to a jury for the jury’s determination on conflicting theories or facts.” Accord, Bellere v. Madsen, Fla.1959, 114 So. 2d 619; Shedden v. Yellow Cab Co. of Miami, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 388; Cooper v. Yellow Cab. Co., Fla.App.1958, 106 So. 2d 436. In the instant case the record is devoid of substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of negligence. The plaintiffs were entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of liability pursuant to their motion at the close of all the evidence. The j…
-
Valarie v. Stephens, 207 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…the collision. Shortly after the McNulty case was decided the presumption rule was held to apply to a collision between a vehicle stopped and waiting to turn left and a vehicle approaching from the rear, Cooper v. Yellow Cab Co. Inc., Fla.App.1958, 106 So. 2d 436 and also to a collision which occurred between a vehicle lawfully stopped in a line of traffic and a vehicle approaching from the rear, Shedden v. Yellow Cab Company of Miami, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 388. More recent decisions have held that the pr…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McNULTY v. Cusack, 104 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Nola J. Shedden and William J. Shedden v. Yellow CAB Co. OF Miami, 105 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)