FERREL L. BODIFORD, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
KENYATTOS ANDRE ROLLINS, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 a rear-end collision case, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the jury's verdict awarding over one million dollars in damages to the rear-ended driver Rollins against Bodiford, but reversed and remanded to eliminate the jury's finding that Rollins was 30% comparatively at fault, as there was no evidence supporting comparative negligence against the front driver in a rear-end collision.
The court affirmed the damage award judgment but reversed the comparative fault finding against Rollins. There was no evidence that Rollins breached any legal duty or failed to use reasonable care, so the jury's finding of comparative negligence against him was unsupported.
[1] In a rear-end collision, the rear driver bears the burden to rebut the presumption of negligence by producing evidence of a substantial and reasonable explanation.
[2] A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be granted when, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no evidence supports the jury's find…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“to apportion fault to front driver in rear-end collision requires evidence that front driver "was negligent and comparatively at fault in causing the collision"”
Establishes the legal standard requiring evidence of negligence before comparative fault can be assigned to a front driver in a rear-end collision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenyattos Andre Rollins was rear-ended by Ferrel Bodiford while Rollins was waiting for traffic to clear to make a left turn. The jury awarded Rollins…
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
Kenyattos Andre Rollins sustained significant injuries when he was rear-ended by Ferrel Bodiford while Rollins was waiting for traffic to clear to make a left turn. Bodiford appeals the judgment resulting from a jury verdict awarding damages in excess of one million dollars. Rollins cross-appeals, arguing that there was no basis for the jury’s finding that he was thirty percent at fault for the accident.
We find no merit in any of the issues raised in Bodiford’s appeal and affirm as to those issues. We reverse the denial of Rollins’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as there was no evidence showing that Rollins breached any legal duty or failed to use reasonable care. Thus, there was no evidence to support the jury’s finding that Rollins was negligent and comparatively at fault for the accident. See Birge v. Charron, 107 So.3d 350, 360 (Fla.2012) (clarifying that to apportion fault to front driver in rear-end collision requires evidence that front driver “was negligent and comparatively at fault in causing the collision”); Pierce v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 582 So.2d 712, 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that in rear-end collision, rear driver has burden to rebut presumption of rear driver negligence by producing evidence of substantial and reasonable explanation that rebuts presumption); see also McQueen v. Jersani, 909 So.2d 491, 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (reiterating that motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict should be granted where, in light most favorable to non-moving par*1075ty, no evidence supports jury finding for non-moving party).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to enter an amended judgment consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SAWAYA and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pierce v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 582 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Birge v. Charron, 107 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 2012)
- McQUEEN v. Mohan W. Jersani, M.D., 909 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)