Presumption Of Negligence

223 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• White Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dupont
  455 So. 2d 1026· Fla.· 1984-07-26 ·cited 218×
  Evidence of mechanical negligence alone—that a loader's brakes were not working and the operator was aware of this—is insufficient as a matter of law to submit the issue of punitive damages to a jury. Punitive damages require negligence of a gross and flagrant character evincing
• Gulle v. Purley L. Boggs
  174 So. 2d 26· Fla.· 1965-04-07 ·cited 164×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between District Courts of Appeal regarding burden of proof in rear-end collision cases. The Court clarified that while a presumption of negligence arises when a stopped vehicle is struck from behind, a defendant who produces evidence
• Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Myrick
  91 Fla. 918· Fla.· 1926-05-14 ·cited 149×
  This case addresses the respective duties of railroad companies and automobile drivers at highway-railroad crossings and the allocation of negligence when a train strikes a vehicle. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that the defendant ra
• Jacksonville v. Peninsular Land
  27 Fla. 1· Fla.· 1891-01-01 ·cited 140×
  Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Company appeals a jury verdict of $52,909.03 in favor of Peninsular Land, Transportation and Manufacturing Company for damages caused by a fire that destroyed plaintiff's buildings and property in Tavares, Florida on April 9, 1888. The fire
• Persis Stevens v. Tampa Elec. Co.
  81 Fla. 512· Fla.· 1921-04-12 ·cited 122×
  In a negligence suit arising from a street car-automobile collision, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a directed verdict for the defendant street car company, holding that once a defendant railroad or street car company affirmatively proves its employees exercised all ordinary
• Warfield v. Hepburn
  62 Fla. 409· Fla.· 1911-06-01 ·cited 106×
  A passenger injured when a railroad train was derailed sought damages for negligence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $4,000 judgment, holding that the passenger's declaration sufficiently pleaded negligence by alleging the defendant carrier's duty, its negligent operation c
• Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Bridgeman
  133 Fla. 195· Fla.· 1938-02-14 ·cited 99×
  This wrongful death action arose from the electrocution of a widow who came into contact with a downed high-voltage power line following an automobile accident that struck a utility pole. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for the minor children, holding that the u
• McNULTY v. Cusack
  104 So. 2d 785· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-08-29 ·cited 90×
  The court affirmed a directed verdict for plaintiff in a negligence case arising from a rear-end collision, holding that the circumstances of the collision (car struck while stopped at red light) created a presumption of negligence against the defendant, shifting the burden to th
• Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Callan
  73 Fla. 688· Fla.· 1917-03-21 ·cited 86×
  This case concerns a personal injury lawsuit against a railroad company. The court affirmed a jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that the railroad failed to overcome the statutory presumption of negligence when its train backed into the plaintiff's wagon without sufficient w
• Aberson v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co.
  68 Fla. 196· Fla.· 1914-11-06 ·cited 86×
  This case clarifies the distinction between directing a verdict and granting a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant a new trial, emphasizing the broader discretion afforded to trial judges in ensuring justice, even when a directed verdict mi
• Orme v. Burr
  157 Fla. 378· Fla.· 1946-05-03 ·cited 85×
  Two widow plaintiffs appealed jury verdicts in favor of the administrator of Andrew Crawford's estate, seeking damages for the wrongful deaths of their husbands who died in a single-vehicle crash allegedly caused by Crawford's gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct. The
• Covington v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
  99 Fla. 1102· Fla.· 1930-05-15 ·cited 76×
  A minor injured when his father drove an automobile in front of an oncoming train sued the railroad for damages. The trial court granted a new trial after a jury verdict for the plaintiff, finding that the father's negligence in failing to observe the approaching train was the pr
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Yniestra
  21 Fla. 700· Fla.· 1886-01-01 ·cited 76×
  Annie E. Yniestra sued the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company for wrongful death after her husband was killed by the company's locomotive while he walked on railroad tracks in a public street switch yard in Pensacola. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict for
• Colletta P. Clampitt v. D.J. Spencer Sales
  786 So. 2d 570· Fla.· 2001-05-10 ·cited 70×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a district court decision that had overturned summary judgment in a rear-end collision case. The Court held that a sudden stop alone is insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption of negligence attaching to the rear driver, and affirmed t
• The Consumers Elec. Light & St. R.R. Co. v. Pryor
  44 Fla. 354· Fla.· 1902-01-01 ·cited 64×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for Mary E. Pryor against The Consumers Electric Light and Street Railroad Company in a personal injury action involving a streetcar collision. The case establishes important principles regarding the pleading of negligence in street r
• Pensacola Elec. Co. v. Bissett
  59 Fla. 360· Fla.· 1910-01-01 ·cited 63×
  Pensacola Electric Company appeals jury verdicts awarding damages to Elizabeth M. Bissett for injuries sustained when the motor of an electric car broke loose, driving trap-doors upward against her feet while she was a passenger. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the judgments, h
• Bellere v. Einar Madsen
  114 So. 2d 619· Fla.· 1959-09-16 ·cited 62×
  A defendant is not entitled to a sudden emergency instruction if their own negligence created or contributed to the emergency.
• Pensacola Transit Co., Inc. v. Denton
  119 So. 2d 296· Fla. 1st DCA· 1960-04-05 ·cited 60×
  Pensacola Transit's bus struck the rear of Denton's stopped car at a traffic light. The trial court directed a verdict for Denton on liability, then submitted only damages to the jury, which awarded $18,500. The appellate court reversed, holding that under Florida's presumption o
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Voss
  136 Fla. 32· Fla.· 1939-01-27 ·cited 50×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld jury verdicts against Atlantic Coast Line Railroad in two consolidated cases arising from a train-automobile collision, but found error in the jury charge regarding the statutory presumption of railroad negligence. The court clarified that while F
• Pierce v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co.
  582 So. 2d 712· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-06-27 ·cited 49×
  Pierce, operating a motorcycle, was struck from behind by Tiroff's car in a chain-collision on Highway 50. The court affirmed summary judgment for Progressive Insurance and its agent, holding that Pierce failed to rebut the presumption of negligence against rear-end drivers becau
• Transcon. GAS Pipe Line Corp. v. The Mobile Drilling Barge or Vessel Known As MR. Charlie
  424 F.2d 684· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-06 ·cited 49×
  The court held that both the drilling company (ODECO) and the lease operator (SIGNAL) were concurrently negligent in causing damage to a pipeline, and that SIGNAL was not entitled to contractual indemnity from ODECO for its own negligence. The dismissal of claims against co-owner
• The Greyhound Corp. v. Sudella Ford
  157 So. 2d 427· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-10-04 ·cited 49×
  Greyhound Corporation appeals a jury verdict in a negligence case arising from a rear-end collision. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial judge's jury instruction on the presumption of negligence from rear-end collisions was erroneous
• Tampa Elec. Co. v. Katheryn Merle Bazemore
  85 Fla. 164· Fla.· 1923-02-13 ·cited 49×
  A young child was struck and run over by a Tampa Electric Company street car, resulting in the amputation of her arm. The company appealed a $15,500 jury verdict, arguing insufficient evidence of negligence and improper jury instructions. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the ve
• Farnsworth v. Tampa Elec. Co.
  62 Fla. 166· Fla.· 1911-06-01 ·cited 49×
  Farnsworth sued Tampa Electric Company for damages from a collision between the company's electric streetcar and his automobile at an intersection in Tampa. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment for the defendant, holding that the jury instructions imprope
• Eppler v. Tarmac Am., Inc.
  752 So. 2d 592· Fla.· 2000-02-17 ·cited 48×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that testimony of a sudden, unexpected stop immediately after starting forward in bumper-to-bumper traffic constitutes sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of negligence that attaches to the rear driver in a rear-end collision. The court
• THE Severance. THE Stone 6. Diamond S. S. Transp. Corp. v. Peoples Sav. Bank & Tr. Co.
  152 F.2d 916· 4th Cir.· 1945-12-27 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the respondent, R. R. Stone, was liable for the damage caused by the collision due to the negligence of his pilot and the furnishing of an incompetent tug, and that his petition for limitation of liability should be denied due to privity and knowledge.
• Gertrude Tozier v. Jarvis
  469 So. 2d 884· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-05-15 ·cited 47×
  Bruce and Gertrude Tozier sued Harold Jarvis after their vehicle was struck from behind by his cement truck. The court held that the presumption of negligence attaching to the rear-vehicle driver was not rebutted by Jarvis's testimony, and thus a directed verdict on liability sho
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. McCormick
  59 Fla. 121· Fla.· 1910-01-01 ·cited 47×
  Mrs. McCormick was injured when she stepped into a hole in the waiting room floor of a railroad depot. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the judgment against the railroad companies because the trial court erroneously applied statutory provisions regarding presumptions of neglige
• Venable v. A/S DET Forenede Dampskibsselskab
  399 F.2d 347· 4th Cir.· 1968-06-12 ·cited 46×
• S. Ry. Co. v. Mann
  91 Fla. 948· Fla.· 1926-05-17 ·cited 45×
  Willie Mann sued Southern Railway Company for damages arising from a motorcycle collision with a train at a railroad crossing in Jacksonville. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict of $5,000, holding that Southern Railway Company, as a lessee rather than owner/opera
• Marrero v. Malcolm G. Goldsmith, M.D.
  486 So. 2d 530· Fla.· 1986-01-23 ·cited 43×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action may invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur despite presenting some direct evidence of negligence, and relaxed the exclusive control requirement in cases involving unconscious surgical patients who c
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Pelot
  62 Fla. 121· Fla.· 1911-06-01 ·cited 38×
  The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed a judgment for a passenger injured by a train car door. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, despite the defendant's arguments about the declaration's sufficiency and the verdict's excessiveness.
• Archer v. Ronald A. Maddux, M.D.
  645 So. 2d 544· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-11-14 ·cited 36×
  Bonnie Archer appealed the dismissal of her medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Ronald Maddux for failing to provide a corroborating verified medical expert opinion before the statute of limitations expired. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Florida's presuit s
• Bisso v. Waterways Transp. Co., Inc.
  235 F.2d 741· 5th Cir.· 1956-06-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while the barge was partially at fault for dropping the wrong anchor, the tugs were not fully exonerated and the assisting tug (Mary B.) breached its contract for horsepower, leading to shared liability.
• Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Price
  46 So. 2d 481· Fla.· 1950-05-26 ·cited 35×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed judgments for two plaintiffs in a car-train collision case, finding the evidence insufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court also reversed an order granting a new trial to a third plaintiff, deeming the jury's verdict for him, despite
• Ronna Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  908 So. 2d 342· Fla.· 2005-07-07 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that plaintiffs cannot maintain an independent cause of action for spoliation of evidence against a defendant who is also the defendant in the underlying tort claim. Instead, when a first-party defendant negligently loses evidence, courts should app
• Lobel v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  192 F.2d 217· 2d Cir.· 1951-10-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court erred in applying Indiana law regarding res ipsa loquitur, and that New York procedural law should have governed. It also found that the admission of certain evidence was harmless error, but other errors necessitated a new trial.
• Davis v. Cain
  86 Fla. 18· Fla.· 1923-06-13 ·cited 34×
  A Florida Supreme Court case involving a railroad crossing accident where a motor vehicle was struck by a train. The court affirmed a $4,000 judgment for the plaintiff despite finding contributory negligence, applying Florida's statutory presumption of negligence against railroad
• Jefferies v. Amery Leasing, Inc.
  698 So. 2d 368· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-08-22 ·cited 33×
  In this rear-end collision case, the court affirmed summary judgment for the lead driver (Acuna) and truck owner, holding that no evidence demonstrated the lead driver's negligence. The decision clarifies how the traditional rear-end collision presumption applies under Florida's
• Adelman v. M & S Welding Shop, Inc.
  105 So. 2d 802· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-10-21 ·cited 31×
  A complaint alleging damage to bailed property is sufficient if it states facts from which negligence can be inferred, even without alleging specific acts of negligence.
• Baughman v. Vann
  390 So. 2d 750· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-10-29 ·cited 30×
  The appellate court reversed a jury verdict for the defendants in a rear-end collision case. The court found that the presumption of negligence for the following driver was not rebutted by inadmissible evidence, and thus, liability should have been directed in favor of the plaint
• Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. v. Lake Region Packing Ass'n
  211 So. 2d 25· Fla. 4th DCA· 1968-05-29 ·cited 30×
  Lake Region Packing Association sued Seaboard Air Line Railroad for negligent delay in transporting fresh tangerines from Florida to Philadelphia, resulting in market loss. The court affirmed the jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that a common carrier owes a duty to exercis
• Cater v. Gordon Transp., Inc.
  390 F.2d 44· 5th Cir.· 1968-02-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding a collision between the defendant's truck and the scaffolding, thus affirming the directed verdict.
• McKINNEY Supply Co. v. Orovitz
  96 So. 2d 209· Fla.· 1957-07-03 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the jury was authorized to find that the fire's origin was not due to negligence, and thus the res ipsa loquitur doctrine did not apply.
• Powell v. Jackson Grain Co.
  134 Fla. 596· Fla.· 1938-10-24 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's directed verdict for a railroad company in a negligence action arising from a train-truck collision at a street crossing, holding that the jury should have decided the conflicting evidence on negligence, contributory negligence,
• St. Andrews Bay Lumber Co. v. Bernard
  102 Fla. 389· Fla.· 1931-07-07 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error filed by St. Andrews Bay Lumber Company because the appellant's brief failed to comply with Florida's Amended Rule 20 regarding proper format and content of appellate briefs. The opinion emphasizes the importance of compliance
• Ortlieb v. Carmen and Tracy Butts
  849 So. 2d 1165· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-07-23 ·cited 26×
  In a rear-end collision case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's grant of additur (increase in damages) and its denial of a directed verdict on liability. The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by conflicting evidence regarding the extent
• Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc. v. van Dyke
  590 So. 2d 1023· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-12-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the presumption of negligence in rear-end collisions does not automatically entitle the lead vehicle to a directed verdict, and a trial court has discretion to order a new trial on specific damage items after a remittitur.
• George v. Conda, II
  222 So. 2d 417· Fla.· 1969-05-14 ·cited 26×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict that had been entered against a minor plaintiff in a negligence case involving a motorbike struck by a car. The court held that the jury's verdict for the plaintiff should be reinstated because the evidence permitted multiple
• Nola J. Shedden and William J. Shedden v. Yellow CAB Co. OF Miami
  105 So. 2d 388· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-10-02 ·cited 26×
  A rear-end collision raises a presumption of negligence against the following driver, entitling the plaintiff to recover absent an explanation from the defendant.