ERNEST AGUST DECLEIR AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ETHEL MAE CLARK, 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.
The trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on liability because the sufficiency of the defendant driver's explanation for a rear-end collision is a jury question.
A driver struck the rear of another vehicle. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict on liability.…
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 Presumption Of Negligence In Rear-End Collisions cases and more on FLexlaw
On the basis of our review of the briefs, record on appeal and oral argument we are of the opinion that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict on the issue of liability.
The driver of a vehicle which strikes the rear of another vehicle is presumed to be negligent and a plaintiff would be entitled to recover in absence of an explanation by the defendant. Guile v. Boggs, Fla.1965, 174 So.2d 26; Frazier v. Ross, Fla.App.1969, 225 So.2d 451. Whether the defendant driver’s explanation is sufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence is, in our view, under the facts and circumstances of this case a matter within the exclusive domain of the jury. Stark v. Vasquez, Fla.1964, 168 So.2d 140. As this Court stated in Frazier v. Ross, supra, 225 So.2d at 453:
“ . . . Although the explanation is none too strong, we cannot hold that it was insufficient as a matter of law and required the trial court to take the issue of the defendant’s negligence away from the jury. . . . ”
We have reviewed the defendants’ remaining points concerning the excessiveness of the verdict and the admission of drug bills into evidence and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order directing a verdict on the issue of liability is set aside and the cause is remanded to *692the trial court with directions to grant defendants’ motion for new trial upon the issue of liability.
Reversed, in part; affirmed, in part.
REED, C. J., and WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. Boyle, 340 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. Upon review of the briefs and record in this cause we are of the opinion that the learned trial court erred in entering a partial summary judgment against the defendants on the issue of liability. See DeCleir v. Clark, 269 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). As pointed out in DeCleir, supra, whether the defendant driver’s explanation is sufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence (where the defendant driver’s vehicle strikes the rear of another vehicle) is a matter which un…
Authorities Cited
- Gulle v. Purley L. Boggs, 174 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1965)
- Ralph Johnson et ux. v. Edwin L, 168 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1964)
- Frazier v. Ross, 225 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)