GEORGE M. BERNSTEIN, APPELLANT,
v.
GLENN CLIFTON CROSSMAN, 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 negligence action, the plaintiff appealed a jury verdict in favor of the defendant after a rear-end collision. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from the rear-end collision, making contributory negligence a jury question that the jury properly resolved in the defendant's favor.
The court held that the defendant presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of negligence when raising the issue of the plaintiff's sudden stop, making contributory negligence a question of fact for the jury. The jury's finding that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence was supported by sufficient evidence and was not clearly erroneous.
“It is apparent from the record that sufficient evidence was presented to rebut the presumption of negligence when the defendant raised the issue of a sudden stop.”
Establishes that the defendant successfully rebutted the presumption of negligence that arises in rear-end collision cases
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 was driving north on South Dixie Highway approaching a traffic light-controlled intersection at Sunset Drive. The defendant followed app…
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 Rebuttal Of Presumption cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff, in a negligence action, appeals the final judgment in defendant’s favor predicated upon a jury verdict
The plaintiff was driving north on South Dixie Highway approaching the intersection of Sunset Drive which was controlled by a traffic light. The defendant was following the plaintiff, in his truck, approximately 100 feet behind. The plaintiff appeared to enter the intersection when the light was yellow,1 and the defendant intended to follow the plaintiff through before the light turned red. Instead of proceeding through the intersection, the plaintiff changed his mind, came to a sudden stop and the defendant ran into the rear of the plaintiff’s car when he was unable to make a similarly sudden stop.
The plaintiff had a passenger in his car whose action against the defendant was consolidated with the plaintiff’s and tried together. The jury returned a verdict for the passenger against the defendant, and returned a verdict for the defendant in the plaintiff’s action.
Thé appellant claims error in the trial court’s failure to direct a verdict for the plaintiff at the end of the case, and the failure of the trial court to grant a judgment n. o. v. after the jury verdict was returned.
The basis of appellant’s argument in support of his motion for directed verdict is that the defendant’s explanation of the sudden stop is not substantial enough to rebut the presumption of negligence raised by the collision from the rear.2
It is apparent from the record that sufficient evidence was presented to rebut the presumption of negligence when the defendant raised the issue of a sudden stop.3 Thereafter, the issue was one of fact for determination by the jury as to whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and in this case the jury so found.
The fact that the plaintiff’s passenger was awarded a verdict is no support for appellant’s motion for'judgment ni o. v., it only strengthens the logical basis for concluding that the jury found plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence.4
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keyser v. Brunette, 188 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…t in that the testimony elicited, together with the circumstances of the accident, clearly dissipated any presumption should one have been created. See Jeskey v. Yellow Cab Company, Fla.App.1962, 136 So. 2d 376; Bernstein v. Crossman, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So. 2d 462; and Beason v. Evans, Fla.App.1965, 173 So. 2d 516. Pensacola Transit Co. v. Denton, Fla.App.1960, 119 So. 2d 296; and Stark v. Vasquez, Fla.1964, 168 So. 2d 140. Secondly, having read the entire record we hold that when the challenged instructions…
-
Alorise Leonard Beason v. Evans, 173 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…n based on conflicting evidence.2 Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed with directions to reinstate the jury verdict Reversed and remanded with directions. . Stark v. Vasquez, Fla.1964, 168 So. 2d 140; Bernstein v. Crossman, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So. 2d 462 (opinion filed March 9,1965). . See Alessi v. Farkas, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 658.…
-
Davis v. Goodall, 202 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…gence on the part of the Plaintiff, the issue of contributory negligence should be submitted to the jury. State Road Department v. Butingaro, Fla.App., 141 So. 2d 620; Lynn v. Pulford, Fla.App., 200 So. 2d 201. In the case of Bernstein v. Crossman, 172 So. 2d 462 at page 463, the District Court of the Third District stated: “It is apparent from the record that sufficient evidence was presented to rebut the presumption of negligence when the defendant raised the issue of a sudden stop. Thereafter, the issue…
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
- Bellere v. Einar Madsen, 114 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1959)
- Ralph Johnson et ux. v. Edwin L, 168 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1964)
- Jeskey v. Yellow CAB Co., Inc., 136 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Theriault v. Sellers B. Rogers and William Bruce Rogers, 166 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Kokotoff v. Higman, 101 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Frank J. Miller & the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Griffin, 154 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)