Presumption Of Negligence

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

• Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Faryd A. Saleme
  963 So. 2d 969· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-09-12 ·cited 11×
  In this motor vehicle negligence case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a jury verdict that had apportioned fault 85% to the rear driver (Saleme) and 15% to the front driver (Trooper Lozano) after a rear-end collision. The court held that Saleme failed to present suf
• Tranter v. Noble Hume Wible
  191 So. 2d 595· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-09-09 ·cited 11×
  This case concerns a collision between a five-year-old boy on a bicycle and an automobile driven by defendant Wible. The court affirmed the trial judge's post-trial judgment notwithstanding the verdict, holding that plaintiffs failed to establish substantial evidence of defendant
• Sorel v. Koonce
  53 So. 3d 1225· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-02-16 ·cited 10×
  In a negligence action arising from a rear-end collision, the court held that the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for directed verdict on the issue of negligence. The court reversed and remanded, finding that the evidence did not rebut the legal presumption of neg
• Pollock v. Goldberg
  651 So. 2d 721· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-02-23 ·cited 10×
  Pollock appeals from a directed verdict granted in favor of Goldberg on her counterclaim for negligent operation. The court reversed, holding that in a comparative negligence case with competing affirmative claims, a directed verdict on a counterclaim requires proof that the defe
• Ben's Seltzer, Inc. v. Markey
  254 So. 2d 377· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-11-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to raise a question of the defendant's negligence for the jury.
• Alorise Leonard Beason v. Evans
  173 So. 2d 516· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-04-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's explanation for the accident was legally sufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence and justify an inference of contributory negligence, making the jury's verdict proper.
• Patterson Oil Terminals, Inc. v. The Port Covington
  205 F.2d 694· 3d Cir.· 1953-07-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a party asserting an affirmative right for indemnity against another respondent in an admiralty action must file a formal cross-libel, and a mere assertion of such a right in an answer is insufficient. The court also affirmed the finding of negligence against
• J. Ray Arnold Lumber Co. v. Carter
  91 Fla. 548· Fla.· 1926-03-26 ·cited 10×
  In this wrongful death action, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for the plaintiff administrator in a negligence case involving a logging train operated by J. Ray Arnold Lumber Company. The court found insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that the defen
• Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. McElroy
  72 Fla. 90· Fla.· 1916-07-08 ·cited 10×
  McElroy sued the Florida East Coast Railway Company for damages caused by fire that burned his trees and plants, allegedly started by sparks from a locomotive. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial because the evidence was insufficient to establi
• Ingrid Hernandez v. Feliciano
  890 So. 2d 401· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-12-23 ·cited 9×
  Hernandez appeals a trial court's order granting a new trial after a jury verdict in her favor in a rear-end collision case. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion by substituting its own judgment for the jury's on the liability issue and by i
• The Charleston Nat'l Bank v. Hennessy
  404 F.2d 539· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a coroner's opinion on the cause of death, based on hearsay and without medical expertise, is inadmissible as evidence, even if included in a death certificate. The court also held that while the jury instruction on the presumption of negligence from a rear-en
• Cleaveland v. Fla. Power & Light, Inc.
  895 So. 2d 1143· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-02-09 ·cited 8×
  Hugh Cleaveland was injured in a multi-vehicle accident involving FPL trucks and sought damages for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants based on the rear-end collision rule, but the appellate court reversed because genuine disputes of material fact
• Value Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Collection Chevrolet, Inc.
  570 So. 2d 1376· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-12-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a bailee's presumption of negligence vanishes when the bailee presents evidence of due care and the only logical inference from the evidence is theft.
• Ward v. United States
  838 F.2d 182· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the surgeon did not breach the applicable standard of care was not clearly erroneous, and that medical articles could be considered as evidence even if not received as exhibits.
• Clayton v. Burston
  493 F.2d 429· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions on the presumption of negligence were erroneous under Texas law, affecting the defendant's substantial rights.
• Holden v. DYE
  224 So. 2d 350· Fla. 1st DCA· 1969-07-03 ·cited 8×
  In this negligence action arising from an automobile collision, the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial after a jury verdict against her. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the jury question regarding comparative negligence was properly left to the j
• Baker v. Enid I. Deeks
  176 So. 2d 108· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-06-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it was improper to instruct the jury on the presumption of negligence once the defendant offered an explanation. The court also held that the sufficiency of evidence is not reviewable on appeal without a prior motion for a directed verdict.
• Frank J. Miller & the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Griffin
  154 So. 2d 333· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-05-28 ·cited 8×
  In this personal injury case arising from a rear-end automobile collision, the Florida appellate court reversed a directed verdict for the plaintiff on liability, holding that conflicting testimony about whether the plaintiff made a sudden or gradual stop presented a question of
• C. J. Jones Lumber Co., Inc. v. Morrison
  154 So. 2d 721· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-05-15 ·cited 8×
  In this negligence action arising from a collision between a car and a trailer truck on the Tamiami Trail, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff despite evidence of the plaintiff's intoxication and failure to maintain proper lookout. The appellate court reversed, finding
• S. Ry. Co. v. Mrs. Nora B. Jolley
  267 F.2d 934· 5th Cir.· 1959-05-13 ·cited 8×
• Carter v. Kurn
  127 F.2d 415· 8th Cir.· 1942-04-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury, not the judge, should decide negligence when a statutory presumption of negligence is rebutted by evidence, especially when physical facts contradict oral testimony.
• Kaemmerling v. Athletic Mining & Smelting Co.
  2 F.2d 574· 8th Cir.· 1924-09-11 ·cited 8×
  The trial court erred in sustaining the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint. A general allegation of negligence is sufficient against a general demurrer, and the presence of a dangerous electrical current where it should not be creates a presumption of negligence. F
• Sunset Motor Lines, Inc. v. Lu-Tex Packing Co., Inc.
  256 F.2d 495· 5th Cir.· 1958-06-13 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the market value of the goods as shipped and in their damaged condition, and that the carrier's negligence caused the spoilage.
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Willis
  58 Fla. 307· Fla.· 1909-06-01 ·cited 7×
  Dr. J. H. Willis sued the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company for injuries sustained when a train's violent lurch caused a toilet door to slam shut on his thumb while he was a passenger in a Pullman car. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict awarding Willis $608
• Luanna Shirey and Michael Shirey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  94 So. 3d 619· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-04-25 ·cited 6×
  The Shireys appealed summary judgment granted in favor of State Farm and the Sabinsons in a multi-vehicle collision case. The court affirmed, holding that the Shireys failed to rebut the presumption of negligence applicable to rear-end collisions by presenting insufficient eviden
• Atim Nkang Itiat v. Foskey
  28 So. 3d 140· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-02-05 ·cited 6×
  A personal representative of a deceased wrongful death victim appeals a summary judgment in favor of a tow truck driver in a rear-end collision case. The court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the tow truck driver suddenly changed lanes an
• Wilton LEE v. Dunnigan
  384 So. 2d 165· Fla. 2d DCA· 1980-05-02 ·cited 6×
  In this negligence case involving a multi-vehicle collision, the appellants sought contribution from the appellees based on comparative negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, but the appellate court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fac
• Kroger v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist.
  523 F.2d 161· 8th Cir.· 1975-09-09 ·cited 6×
  A supplier of electricity who no longer owns or controls transmission lines, and has no notice of dangerous conditions or activities near them, owes no duty of care to individuals injured by those lines.
• Leffie H. Ritter v. Brengle
  185 So. 2d 7· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-04-06 ·cited 6×
  Plaintiff Leffie Ritter, an incompetent person represented by his guardian, appealed a summary judgment dismissing his negligence action against David Brengle's estate following a rear-end automobile collision. The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the evidence ra
• MacArages v. Raymond Concrete Pile Co.
  220 F.2d 891· 5th Cir.· 1955-04-08 ·cited 6×
  Workers in statutory hazardous occupations in Florida are covered by the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act, and their exclusive remedy for injuries is under that Act, even if the employer has elected to come within its provisions.
• Johnson v. E. Air Lines, Inc.
  177 F.2d 713· 2d Cir.· 1949-10-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a directed verdict or a new trial because the defendant presented sufficient evidence to rebut any presumption of negligence, and the jury was entitled to find the defendant not negligent.
• O'Donnell v. Elgin
  171 F.2d 973· 7th Cir.· 1948-12-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury instructions were confusing and did not correctly state the law regarding the Safety Appliance Act, leading to a wrong result.
• Loftin v. Crowley's Inc.
  150 Fla. 836· Fla.· 1942-06-23 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld railroad-specific statutory liability provisions against a constitutional challenge that they violated equal protection by treating railroads differently than motor vehicle carriers. The Court held that the legislature may constitutionally classif
• Boyle et ux. v. Ward
  125 F.2d 672· 3d Cir.· 1942-01-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the substantive law of New York applied to the tort claim, Pennsylvania procedural law governed the determination of whether the evidence was sufficient to submit the case to the jury.
• Director General of Railroads v. Fanny Into
  83 Fla. 377· Fla.· 1922-03-15 ·cited 6×
  A widow sued the Director General of Railroads under Florida statute for damages resulting from her husband's death when struck by a railroad engine traveling at unlawful, excessive speed through a municipality. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $15,000 jury verdict, holding t
• Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Minor
  82 Fla. 492· Fla.· 1921-12-20 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for a lumber company against a railway company, finding that the evidence did not sufficiently prove the railway's negligence caused the fire that destroyed the company's sawmill. The court also found that jury instructions regarding
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Hamlett
  81 Fla. 872· Fla.· 1921-06-06 ·cited 6×
  A railroad passenger sued for injuries sustained when a train car was suddenly jerked and moved with violent force, throwing him against the car's interior. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $2,000 judgment for the passenger, holding that while passengers assume risks incident
• Jacksonville Elec. Co. v. August Hellenthal
  56 Fla. 443· Fla.· 1908-06-01 ·cited 6×
  Jacksonville Electric Company appeals a jury verdict for damages in favor of Hellenthal, who was injured by a street car. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the judgment, holding that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the equal rights of street cars and pedestrians a
• DiGREGORIO v. Indus. Supply Corp. OF Orlando
  438 F.2d 303· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a presumption of negligence in rear-end collisions is a rule of law that shifts the burden of proof, not a matter for jury instruction, especially when evidence contradicts the presumption. Testimony about unrelated prior conduct is prejudicial error.
• Marsicano v. Rogers
  164 So. 2d 531· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-05-20 ·cited 5×
  In a motor vehicle collision case, the trial court found the plaintiff violated a traffic ordinance but allowed the jury verdict in the plaintiff's favor to stand. On appeal, the defendant argued the lower court's statements constituted a determination that the plaintiff was cont
• Dockswell v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc.
  177 So. 3d 270· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-09-16 ·cited 4×
  The Dockswells appealed a jury verdict in favor of Bethesda Memorial Hospital in a medical negligence case involving a retained surgical drain fragment. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of a jury instruction on foreign bodies that would have created a presumption of ne
• Castillo v. Visual Health & Surgical Ctr., Inc.
  972 So. 2d 254· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-01-02 ·cited 4×
  In this medical malpractice appeal, the Castillos challenged a jury verdict in favor of their surgeon and surgical center after a sponge fragment was left in the plaintiff's eye during pterygium removal surgery. The court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly allowed th
• Murray v. Schreiner
  825 So. 2d 527· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-09-13 ·cited 4×
  In this rear-end collision case, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for the defendant, holding that conflicting expert evidence about whether the defendant could have avoided the crash through evasive driving tactics despite brake failure create
• Mazie Ferguson v. Disalvo
  775 So. 2d 414· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-01-03 ·cited 4×
  In this rear-end collision case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the denial of a directed verdict on liability, holding that the defendant driver's sudden stop at a red light in heavy traffic conditions was reasonably expected and did not rebut the presumption of neg
• D.J. Spencer Sales v. Colletta P. Clampitt
  704 So. 2d 601· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-10-15 ·cited 4×
  In a rear-end collision case, the trial court granted the appellee's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of comparative fault, finding the rear-driver appellant failed to rebut the presumption of negligence. The appellate court reversed, holding that the rear driver'
• Rodi Yachts v. Nat'l Marine
  984 F.2d 880· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were insufficient to determine the relative fault of the parties, requiring a remand for further proceedings.
• Complaint of Chevron Transp. Corp.
  613 F. Supp. 1428· M.D. Fla.· 1985-07-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that both the pilot and master of the Robert Watt Miller were negligent, and the dredge Alaska violated navigation rules, contributing to the collision and deaths. Chevron Transport's failure to ensure proper dissemination of navigational information meant it could
• BOX v. S. Ga. Ry. Co.
  433 F.2d 89· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-12 ·cited 4×
• O'Brien v. Francis
  231 So. 2d 13· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-01-27 ·cited 4×
  In this negligence case arising from a rear-end collision, the defendant appealed a directed verdict of liability. The court reversed, holding that the defendant's explanation of the accident was sufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence that arose from the rear-end colli
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Mrs. Woodrow Sapp
  248 F.2d 889· 5th Cir.· 1957-11-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' evidence failed to establish any negligence on the part of the railroad company, and therefore, the case should not have been submitted to the jury.