COMMUNITY CABS, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN O. GRISSETT AND FRANK HUNTER, APPELLEES
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.
Affirmed judgment for vehicle owner and driver where jury found plaintiff's sudden stop in traffic lane, not defendant's rear-end collision, was the proximate cause of the accident despite the presumption of negligence from the rear-end impact.
Although a rear-end collision creates a presumption of negligence, the defendant may rebut it by showing the plaintiff's sudden stop in a traffic lane was the proximate cause of the accident.
[1] A rear-end collision creates a presumption of negligence that may be rebutted by evidence that the plaintiff's sudden stop in a traffic lane was the proximate cause of th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCommunity Cabs' taxicab was struck in the rear by a vehicle operated by Frank Hunter and owned by John O. Grissett when the taxi stopped to pick up a …
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 Rear-End Collision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, who was plaintiff in the trial court, brought this action for the recovery of damages suffered by it when a vehicle operated by defendant, Frank Hunter, and owned by John O. Grissett, negligently crashed into the rear end of plaintiff’s taxicab when it stopped to pick up a passenger. From a judgment based upon a jury verdict rendered in favor of defendant, Grissett, on his counterclaim against plaintiff, this appeal is taken.
Appellant’s sole point on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment recovered by appellee and contends that the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and justice of the cause. We have carefully reviewed the testimony adduced at the trial and find that it is sufficient to sustain the findings and conclusions apparently reached by the jury that although defendant’s vehicle did crash into the rear end of appellant’s taxicab, thereby creating a presumption of negligence,1 nevertheless defendant-driver had not failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances and that it was plaintiff-driver’s negligence in bringing its taxicab to a sudden stop on the street in a lane of moving traffic which caused the collision out of which the damages arose. Under this state of the evidence we are unable to say that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial.2 The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and CARROLL, CHARLES A., Associate Judge, concur. . McNulty v. Cusack (Fla.App.1958), 104 So. 2d 785.
. Holden v. Dye (Fla.App.1969), 224 So. 2d 350.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. Transit Auth. & Robert Hamlett v. Espinosa, 344 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…Corporation v. Gates, 330 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1976). Finding evidence in the record to support the jury’s verdict, no error has been made to appear. Vanzant v. Davies, 215 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1968); Community Cabs, Inc. v. Grissett, 284 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1973); Thompson v. Jacobs, supra. The final judgment is therefore affirmed. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- McNULTY v. Cusack, 104 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Holden v. DYE, 224 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)