Presumption Of Negligence

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

• Am. Ry. Express Co. v. Fegenbush
  107 Fla. 145· Fla.· 1932-10-24 ·cited 26×
  American Railway Express Company appealed a judgment for damages caused by negligent transportation of perishable goods (beans and lettuce) in interstate commerce. The Florida Supreme Court held that while the lower court correctly applied the presumption of negligence to the bea
• Smith v. Tampa Elec. Co.
  82 Fla. 79· Fla.· 1921-06-30 ·cited 26×
  In this negligence action arising from a collision between plaintiff's automobile truck and defendant's street car, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a verdict fo
• Holland Paving Co., Inc. v. Dann
  169 So. 2d 849· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-11-24 ·cited 25×
  The appellate court reversed the order granting a new trial, finding the trial judge's conclusion that the verdict was excessive was clearly erroneous. It affirmed the judgments for the plaintiff and against the paving company.
• Klipper v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co.
  622 So. 2d 1141· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-08-13 ·cited 24×
  Klipper appealed a negligence judgment against Dennison and uninsured motorist claim against GEICO after a rear-end collision where she was found 68% at fault. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on a presump
• Rianhard v. Rice
  119 So. 2d 730· Fla. 1st DCA· 1960-04-05 ·cited 23×
  Plaintiff motorcycle rider appealed a summary judgment dismissing his negligence action against a truck driver following a rear-end collision. The court reversed, holding that conflicting evidence about whether the collision occurred in the plaintiff's lane or the defendant's pas
• Kimenker v. Greater Miami CAR Rental, Inc.
  115 So. 2d 191· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-10-01 ·cited 23×
  In a rear-end automobile collision case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a jury verdict for the defendant car rental company, holding that a rear-end collision creates a presumption of negligence that cannot be rebutted by the evidence presented, warranting a direct
• Peoples GAS Sys. v. Posen Constr., Inc.
  931 F.3d 1337· 11th Cir.· 2019-08-01 ·cited 22×
  The Eleventh Circuit certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether the Florida Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act creates a cause of action for a utility to recover damages paid to a third party or a statutory right to indemnification.
• Jeskey v. Yellow CAB Co., Inc.
  136 So. 2d 376· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-01-15 ·cited 22×
  A taxi driver sued another taxi driver for damages from a rear-end collision. The jury found for the defendant, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that even though the plaintiff's sudden stop created a presumption of negligence, the defendant's explanation (that he was fol
• Gordon v. Sutherland
  131 So. 2d 520· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-06-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the mere presence of livestock on a public highway does not, without more, establish a violation of statutes requiring owners to prevent livestock from straying, nor does it create a presumption of negligence.
• Burton v. Powell
  547 So. 2d 330· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-08-10 ·cited 21×
  In this negligence case, the appellate court reversed the trial court's allocation of fault between a rear-end collision victim and the defendant driver, holding that the victim was entitled to a directed verdict on liability because the defendant's negligence was the sole proxim
• Paris v. Barfield
  160 Fla. 87· Fla.· 1948-01-27 ·cited 21×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a negligence judgment against defendant Oscar Paris, finding reversible error in the trial court's ruling that multiple defendants were limited to a total of three peremptory challenges rather than three challenges each under Florida statute.
• McCLOUD v. Swanson
  681 So. 2d 898· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-10-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of negligence in a rear-end collision, entitling her to have the issue of the defendant's negligence submitted to the jury.
• Ulyses Liriano v. Gonzalez
  605 So. 2d 575· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-09-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that evidence presented a jury question on liability, precluding summary judgment for the defendant in a rear-end collision case.
• Chiles v. Beaudoin
  384 So. 2d 175· Fla. 2d DCA· 1980-05-09 ·cited 20×
  In a rear-end vehicular negligence case, the appellate court reversed a judgment for the plaintiff based on two errors: (1) partial summary judgment on liability that should have been precluded by conflicting testimony about whether the defendant should have anticipated the plain
• Denning Warehouse Co. v. Widener
  172 F.2d 910· 10th Cir.· 1949-02-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that under the Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act, the burden is on the warehouseman to establish lawful excuse for non-delivery, and destruction by fire alone does not meet this burden.
• O'Donnell Transp. Co., Inc. v. M. & J. Tracy
  150 F.2d 735· 2d Cir.· 1945-07-10 ·cited 20×
  A charterer is secondarily liable for damage to a barge caused by the negligence of a tug hired by a third party to whom the charterer entrusted the barge.
• The Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Fulton F. Smith
  61 Fla. 218· Fla.· 1911-01-01 ·cited 20×
  Fulton F. Smith sued Florida East Coast Railway for damages from a fire that destroyed his planing mill, allegedly caused by sparks from a negligently equipped locomotive. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict, finding error in jury instructions that failed to prope
• Walther v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist. & Floyd L. Neal
  412 F.2d 1164· 8th Cir.· 1969-07-07 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the erroneous exclusion of expert testimony was cured by other admissible testimony, and the jury instructions on negligence and proximate cause were not prejudicial error.
• Hott v. Funk
  165 So. 2d 792· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-06-10 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the jury could reasonably find the defendant was not negligent, despite the presumption arising from a rear-end collision, because the circumstances presented an issue of fact for the jury.
• Alford v. Cool Cargo Carriers, Inc.
  936 So. 2d 646· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-06-30 ·cited 18×
  A passenger injured in a rear-end collision between two semi-tractor trailers challenges summary judgment in favor of the rear-vehicle driver. Although the court finds the rear-end collision presumption of negligence does not apply because the lead vehicle made an unexpected lane
• Schwerman Trucking Co. v. Gartland S.S. Co.
  496 F.2d 466· 7th Cir.· 1974-05-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a trial judge's mechanical adoption of a prevailing party's proposed findings of fact is improper and undermines appellate review.
• Hiram Tackett, Jr. v. Hartack
  98 So. 2d 896· Fla. 3d DCA· 1957-11-29 ·cited 18×
  In a wrongful death action arising from an automobile accident, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant after the plaintiff rested his case. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of actionable negligence by the defendant
• United States v. Wibye (two cases)
  191 F.2d 181· 9th Cir.· 1951-08-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the government is liable for the negligence of its employee driving a government vehicle, even when the employee combines personal business with government duties.
• Sawyer v. Dawson
  215 So. 2d 764· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-11-05 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a directed verdict on liability and a new trial on damages, as the defendant's explanation for the rear-end collision was insufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence.
• Shaw v. Miles Bartow York
  187 So. 2d 397· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-04-26 ·cited 17×
  In this negligence case arising from a rear-end collision, the Florida appellate court affirmed a jury verdict for the plaintiff despite determining that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the presumption of negligence in rear-end collisions. The court held that whi
• Atkins v. Ludvig Lorentzen
  328 F.2d 66· 5th Cir.· 1964-02-13 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Martha Anne failed to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from its sheer and that the Ceara's alleged statutory violations did not contribute to the collision.
• Glenna Fisher v. Perez
  947 So. 2d 648· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-01-24 ·cited 16×
  Fisher appeals the trial court's denial of her motion for continuance when her sole medical expert, Dr. Piper, became unexpectedly unavailable due to post-surgical complications the day before trial in a personal injury lawsuit. The Third District reversed, finding the trial cour
• Eppler v. Tarmac Am., Inc.
  695 So. 2d 775· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-04-28 ·cited 16×
  The presumption of negligence in rear-end collisions is overcome when the rear-vehicle driver provides evidence of an unexpected stop by the lead vehicle at a time and place where it could not reasonably be expected, creating a factual question for the jury rather than entitling
• Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Gregorie Menzies and Ziol Menzies
  561 So. 2d 677· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-05-15 ·cited 16×
  Rockwell International appealed a default judgment on product liability after the trial court struck its pleadings due to destruction of critical evidence—two bolts from a table saw—despite a court order prohibiting alteration or destruction. The court affirmed, holding that dest
• AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Pappagallo Rest., Inc.
  547 So. 2d 243· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-07-18 ·cited 16×
  A directed verdict for the bailee was improper because even if the presumption of negligence vanished due to evidence of theft, the underlying facts still presented a jury question regarding the bailee's exercise of due care.
• The Hinesville Bank v. Pony Express Courier Corp.
  868 F.2d 1532· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-30 ·cited 16×
  A common carrier is liable for the full amount lost by a customer due to the carrier's negligence, and a waybill cannot limit this liability without an express contract.
• Carley Sistrunk and Florida M. Sistrunk v. Freeman H. Douglas
  468 So. 2d 1059· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-05-14 ·cited 16×
  The presumption of negligence in rear-end collision cases is rebuttable; a following driver is entitled to have the case submitted to a jury if he offers a substantial and reasonable explanation for his actions, without having to prove the accident was unavoidable or eliminate al
• Pasco Mktg., Inc. v. Taylor Towing Serv., Inc.
  554 F.2d 808· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the mooring tug was required to show it was not at fault for the barge going adrift.
• Sowizral v. Mrs. Adele M. Hughes
  333 F.2d 829· 3d Cir.· 1964-06-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a general objection to jury instructions is insufficient to preserve an issue for appeal, and that the trial court's instructions on the burden of proof and sudden emergency were not a gross miscarriage of justice.
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Britton
  109 Fla. 212· Fla.· 1933-03-23 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a case where a passenger was injured when a train collided with a car stalled on the tracks. The court held that while the passenger may have been contributorily negligent, the railroad company also likely had a duty to avoid the collision, and
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Jones
  50 Fla. 225· Fla.· 1905-06-01 ·cited 16×
  In this wrongful death action stemming from a railroad accident, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. The case addresses the admissibility of evidence regarding the railroad's negligent operation, the competency of
• Bulkmatic Transp. Co. v. Taylor
  860 So. 2d 436· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-08-26 ·cited 15×
  In this products liability case arising from a motor vehicle accident, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order granting a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by basing the new trial on four legal grounds that did not individually or collecti
• DELTA Transload, Inc. v. The Motor Vessel
  818 F.2d 445· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-08 ·cited 15×
• Savannah v. Geo. W. Tiedeman & Bro.
  39 Fla. 196· Fla.· 1897-01-01 ·cited 15×
  The appellate court reversed a lower court's judgment because the jury instructions were based on facts not presented in evidence and introduced issues not raised in the pleadings. The court clarified the standard for proving negligence in cases involving sparks from a locomotive
• Hunter v. Ward
  812 So. 2d 601· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-04-08 ·cited 14×
  In this rear-end collision personal injury case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a directed verdict on liability, holding that the appellee driver failed to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from striking the vehicle ahead at a
• Elton Cowart v. Barnes
  370 So. 2d 103· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-05-02 ·cited 14×
  A rear-end automobile collision creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence on the following vehicle, and where the lead vehicle is in its proper place on the highway and that presumption is not rebutted, the trial court must direct a verdict on liability for the plaintiff.
• Complaint of Charles N. Wasson
  495 F.2d 571· 7th Cir.· 1974-04-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the vessel owner and charterer were liable for damages due to the vessel's unseaworthiness, and that the railroad company was also liable for failing to maintain adequate pier protection as required by its War Department permit.
• Lincoln v. Miggins
  249 So. 2d 88· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-06-15 ·cited 14×
  In this automobile negligence appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a jury verdict awarding damages to a minor passenger injured in a rear-end collision. The appellants challenged both the directed verdict on liability and the $15,000 award for the father's derivati
• S. Utils. Co. v. Matthews
  84 Fla. 30· Fla.· 1922-06-29 ·cited 14×
  This case involves a negligence action brought by the widow of Jack Matthews, a fire department employee killed when struck by a mule and ice wagon while riding on a fire truck responding to a fire alarm. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict for the plaintiff, find
• Davis v. Chips Express, Inc.
  676 So. 2d 984· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-03-20 ·cited 13×
  The court held that disputed issues of material fact regarding the slow speed of the lead vehicle and potential lighting malfunctions preclude summary judgment.
• Keyser v. Brunette
  188 So. 2d 840· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-07-22 ·cited 12×
  In this rear-end automobile collision case, the appellants (Alice and Willis Keyser) challenged a jury verdict entered in favor of the defendant driver. The court upheld the verdict, finding that the evidence sufficiently overcame any presumption of negligence applicable to rear-
• Vasquez v. Stark
  155 So. 2d 905· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-08-27 ·cited 12×
  Vasquez sued Stark for injuries from a rear-end collision. The trial court denied Vasquez's motion for directed verdict and the jury ruled for Stark. The appellate court reversed, holding that Stark's explanation (brake failure) was insufficient to rebut the presumption of neglig
• The Victor. J. F. Campbell Co. v. Dick
  153 F.2d 200· 5th Cir.· 1946-01-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the presumption of negligence against the tug was rebutted by proof of the libellants' statutory fault in mooring the Timberline in an unsafe place, shifting the burden back to the libellants to prove their allegations of negligence.
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Rhoda
  73 Fla. 12· Fla.· 1917-01-18 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a negligence judgment against Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company in a Federal Employers' Liability Act case, holding that Florida's state negligence presumption statute conflicted with the federal act and that the defendant had produced unc
• Jiminez v. Faccone
  98 So. 3d 621· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-08-10 ·cited 11×
  Ana Jiminez appeals a judgment against her in a personal injury case arising from an automobile accident. The Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgments on liability and the permanent injury threshold defense, finding disputed issues of material fact and