FRANK J. MILLER AND THE FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JUANITA GRIFFIN, 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.
In this personal injury case arising from a rear-end automobile collision, the Florida appellate court reversed a directed verdict for the plaintiff on liability, holding that conflicting testimony about whether the plaintiff made a sudden or gradual stop presented a question of fact for the jury to resolve rather than a matter suitable for directed verdict.
The court held that the directed verdict must be reversed and the case remanded because the conflicting testimony between plaintiff and defendant-driver regarding the nature of the stop—sudden versus gradual—presented a disputed issue of fact that must be resolved by a jury, not the trial judge.
“an explanation from the defendant, together with the circumstances of the accident, were sufficient to rebut the presumption and present issues of negligence and contributory negligence for determination by the jury”
Establishes that defendant's explanation of the accident can rebut presumption of negligence arising from rear-end collision and create jury questions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA truck owned by Firestone and driven by Miller struck the rear of Griffin's automobile. Miller testified he knew Griffin was slowing down and attempt…
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 Rebutting Presumption Of Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants appeal a final judgment entered subsequent to a directed verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of liability. The action was for personal injuries growing out of an automobile collision in which a truck owned by appellant-Firestone and driven by appellant-Miller struck the rear of plaintiff-appellee’s automobile. The defendants plead contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff in making an unexpected stop. The trial judge directed the verdict on liability at the conclusion of all of the evidence.
*334An examination of the defendant-driver’s testimony reveals that he knew the plaintiff was slowing down, and that the accident occurred when he attempted to pass the slowing automobile.1
In Jeskey v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., Fla. App.1962, 136 So.2d 376, this court upheld the action of the trial judge in denying plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict on liability in a rear-end collision case. While setting forth that a presumption of negligence arose from the facts involved, it was held that “an explanation from the defendant”, together with the circumstances of the accident, were sufficient to rebut the presumption and present issues of negligence and contributory negligence for determination by the jury. It is to be noted that in the Jeskey case, the plaintiff (driver of the preceding automobile) made a sudden stop to avoid a car which cut in front of him. The instant case, on the other hand, involves a situation where the driver of the following car (the defendant) knew the preceding car was slowing down and didn’t know what action it would take.
The second case which we think bears directly on point in the case upon appeal is Staicer v. Hall, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 113. There was a rear-end collision at a traffic light after plaintiff and defendant had been manually signaled by a policeman to proceed. The court found that one disputed issue of fact was whether the plaintiff had been stopped an appreciable period of time at the moment of impact.. It was held that in view of the conflicting versions of plaintiff and defendant, it was within the jury’s province to determine the issues and render their verdict.
In the instant case there is a similar divergence between the testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant-driver. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff stopped suddenly in the lane of traffic. The plaintiff on the other hand testified to a gradual stop with the car almost off the road.2
The two cases cited require a reversal of the directed verdict for the plaintiff.
Reversed and remanded.
HORTON, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bernstein v. Crossman, 172 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…facts in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. Theriault v. Rogers, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 820. . Bellere v. Madsen, Fla.1959, 114 So. 2d 619, 80 A.L.R.2d 1; Stark v. Vasquez, Fla.1964, 168 So. 2d 140. . Miller v. Griffin, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 333; Jeskey v. Yellow Cab Co., Fla.App.1962, 136 So. 2d 376. . Accord Kokotoff v. Higman, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 166.…
-
J.C. Demmy v. Sligh, 189 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…plaintiff wife. The doctrine of harmless error (if any error there be) was involved in the case of Souvorin v. Lerich, Fla.App. 1965, 180 So. 2d 180. That case and Staicer v. Hall, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 113, and Miller v. Griffin, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 333, clearly hold that a verdict shall not be reversed unless it is made to appear that the error complained of has resulted in a “miscarriage of justice.” In the instant case the jury’s verdict was clearly supported by the evidence. The instruction gi…
-
Ina Mae Hudson v. Lehman, 181 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Jeskey v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., Fla.App.1962, 136 So. 2d 376, and Miller v. Griffin, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 333. ALLEN, C. J., and SHANNON and HOBSON, JJ., concur.…
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
- Staicer v. Hall, 130 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Jeskey v. Yellow CAB Co., Inc., 136 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)