Presumption Of Negligence

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

• Tampa Elec. Co. v. Julien Soule
  84 Fla. 557· Fla.· 1922-11-18 ·cited 4×
  Tampa Electric Company appeals a $15,000 jury verdict in favor of a passenger injured when her dress caught on a loose bolt or nut while alighting from the defendant's street car. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the verdict but reduced the damages to $10,000 through remittitur
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Rhoda
  71 Fla. 526· Fla.· 1913-04-15 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $5,000 judgment against Louisville & Nashville Railroad for the death of an employee killed in an accident at Flomaton, Alabama. The court held that the Federal Employers Liability Act of 1908 creates a cause of action that survives even when
• Waters v. Nettie Williams
  696 So. 2d 386· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-05-22 ·cited 3×
  Waters and Skipper appealed a trial court order granting a new trial on damages after the court directed a verdict against them on liability in a rear-end collision case. The appellate court reversed, holding that the defendant's evidence of brake failure rebutted the presumption
• Neace v. Laimans
  951 F.2d 139· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-18 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding of liability under res ipsa loquitur and its award of damages, finding the exclusion of expert testimony harmless and the damages award not manifestly inadequate.
• Lonray, Inc. v. Azucar, Inc.
  775 F.2d 1521· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-15 ·cited 3×
  The court held that contractual exclusions for weight loss and inspection did not shield the bailee from liability for the unexplained loss of sugar, and that the bailee's rebuttal evidence was insufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence.
• Bell's Fish & Poultry Co., Inc. v. Jenkins
  227 So. 2d 512· Fla. 1st DCA· 1969-10-02 ·cited 3×
  Where evidence of negligence is conflicting but a prima facie case exists, a trial court properly denies a directed verdict motion and submits the negligence issue to the jury; the court must accept all facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.
• Purley L. Boggs v. Gulle
  162 So. 2d 286· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-03-03 ·cited 3×
  Boggs was injured when his stopped vehicle was struck from behind in a four-car chain-reaction collision. The defendants claimed unavoidable brake failure, but the appellate court reversed the jury verdict for the defendants, holding that their brake-failure explanation was insuf
• Callaway v. Hart
  146 F.2d 103· 5th Cir.· 1944-11-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the evidence did not support a verdict for the plaintiff, as there was no showing of carrier fault and the plaintiff's own actions likely caused his injury.
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Cowart
  140 Fla. 596· Fla.· 1939-08-01 ·cited 3×
  Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company appealed a judgment awarding damages to O. W. Cowart for injuries to cattle during shipment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the railroad breached its duty to transport the cattle via the agreed-upon shortest rout
• All Dade Fences, Inc. v. Ortega
  49 Fla. L. Weekly D186· Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-03-06 ·cited 2×
  This case involves an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in a rear-end collision lawsuit and a denial of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding the presumption of negligence for the rear driver was not rebutted, but reversed the denial of
• Dearene Blake v. Singer
  914 So. 2d 994· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-10-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's explanation for the rear-end collision was insufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence, entitling the plaintiff to a directed verdict on liability.
• Duhaime v. Boggs
  877 So. 2d 860· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-07-09 ·cited 2×
  In a chain-collision case on a rain-slicked interstate overpass, the court held that the driver of the last vehicle involved sufficiently rebutted the presumption of negligence that normally attaches to rear-end collisions, allowing the jury to decide liability rather than granti
• Peterson v. Cent. Fla. Reg'l Transp.
  769 So. 2d 418· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-09-08 ·cited 2×
  A bus driver's ordinary operational movements, without evidence of negligent commission or omission, do not support liability for a passenger's fall. A sudden or abrupt movement of a bus is not negligent absent evidence of some act by the driver that violates the carrier's duty o
• Roadway Express, Inc. v. Fuente Cigar, Ltd.
  749 F. Supp. 248· S.D. Fla.· 1990-10-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the shipper failed to establish a prima facie case under the Carmack Amendment because it did not prove the cigars were damaged at the time of delivery to the carrier, thus the trial court erred in denying the carrier's motion for involuntary dismissal.
• Dynair Tech OF Fla., Inc. v. Cayman Airways Ltd.
  558 So. 2d 30· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-12-05 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court reversed a jury verdict against a bailee in a negligence and breach of bailment action. The court found that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the bailee was presumed negligent and had the burden of proving due care, when sufficient evidence h
• Credit Alliance Corp. v. Timmco Equip., Inc.
  507 So. 2d 657· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-04-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider damages from a commercially unreasonable sale of repossessed collateral and that the correct usury statute applied based on the loan's origination date.
• The Int'l Nickel Co., Inc. v. Trammel Crow Distrib. Corp.
  803 F.2d 150· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a material fact issue exists regarding equitable estoppel due to alleged misrepresentations about inventory procedures, precluding summary judgment. The court also found the DTPA notice inadequate but remanded for abatement to allow proper notice.
• Cmty. Cabs, Inc. v. Grissett
  284 So. 2d 707· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-11-08 ·cited 2×
  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.
• DeCLEIR v. Clark
  269 So. 2d 691· Fla. 4th DCA· 1972-11-30 ·cited 2×
  The trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on liability because the sufficiency of the defendant driver's explanation for a rear-end collision is a jury question.
• Housel v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.
  233 So. 2d 424· Fla. 4th DCA· 1970-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The Housels purchased a refrigerator-freezer that was damaged during delivery by Ryder Truck Lines. The trial court ruled for Ryder, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the appliance was in good condition when delivered to the carrier. The appellate court reversed, holding tha
• Nat'l Transp. Corp. v. The TUG Abqaiq
  418 F.2d 1241· 2d Cir.· 1969-12-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that the rule of law applied was appropriate.
• Bryant v. Swarts
  227 So. 2d 715· Fla. 4th DCA· 1969-10-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's testimony did not establish negligence as a matter of law, and the jury's verdict was supported by competent substantial evidence.
• Guelli v. Kraus
  145 So. 2d 900· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-10-10 ·cited 2×
  In this rear-end collision case, the trial court allowed defendants to present evidence of sudden, unexpected brake failure to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from striking a lawfully stopped vehicle. The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict for defendants, holdi
• Butler v. Phily
  133 So. 2d 337· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-08-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendants' motion for a directed verdict, as there was conflicting evidence regarding negligence, and the verdict was supported by the evidence.
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Adams
  292 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1961-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant railroad failed to conclusively exculpate itself from negligence, and thus the trial court did not err in denying motions for a directed verdict, judgment n.o.v., or a new trial.
• Patapsco Scrap Corp. v. Md. Shipbuilding & Dry-Dock Co.
  268 F.2d 817· 4th Cir.· 1959-06-16 ·cited 2×
  A shipowner is liable for damage caused by a vessel breaking from its moorings unless the owner affirmatively proves the accident was inevitable or caused by an act of God, not by negligence.
• Erlbacher v. Republic Homes Corp.
  263 F.2d 217· 8th Cir.· 1959-01-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the shipyard, as a bailee for mutual benefit, was presumed negligent for the loss of the yacht and failed to overcome that presumption, and also found active negligence.
• Hyrum Smith Est. Co. v. Peterson
  227 F.2d 442· 10th Cir.· 1955-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence of ownership and negligence to submit the case to the jury, and that the issues of contributory negligence and jury instructions were properly handled.
• White Stack Towing Corp. v. Hewitt OIL Co.
  216 F.2d 776· 4th Cir.· 1954-11-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the damages were caused by the faulty construction of the breasting dolphins, not by negligence in the docking operation.
• Ry. Express Agency, Inc. v. Smith
  212 F.2d 47· 6th Cir.· 1954-04-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the district court's finding that the carrier was negligent in handling fragile urns, leading to their damage.
• Matsumoto v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.
  168 F.2d 496· 7th Cir.· 1948-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury was properly instructed and that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
• Seaboard Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Elmhurst Contracting Co., Inc.
  159 F.2d 860· 2d Cir.· 1947-02-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the subcharterer is primarily liable for damage to the scow unless it can prove it exercised due care, and the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous.
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Goulding
  52 Fla. 327· Fla.· 1906-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed a judgment for wrongful death against the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude the railroad was negligent in killing a quarantine guard who was on its tracks.
• Restal v. Nocera
  268 So. 3d 270· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-04-18 ·cited 1×
  In this negligence case involving a rear-end vehicle collision, the Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the appellant was negligent as a matter of law but reversed the finding that he was solely at fault, holding that disputed material facts regarding
• Osakatukei O. Omulepu, M.D. v. Dep't of Health
  249 So. 3d 1278· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-06-22 ·cited 1×
  An adverse inference may constitutionally be drawn from a physician's exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent in an administrative disciplinary proceeding, provided the inference is not the sole basis for finding misconduct and is supported by other competent,
• Mose Crowley v. Kreiger
  217 So. 2d 583· Fla. 4th DCA· 1969-01-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, which supported the trial court's judgment for the defendant.
• In re Koch
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-12
  The court recommended granting the motion for default judgment, finding the Limitation of Liability Act applies and the petitioner sufficiently pleaded facts to rebut the presumption of negligence.
• Dubose v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-12
  The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability, vicarious liability, and the government's affirmative defense of comparative fault.
• Restal v. Nocera
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-03-08
  This case involves a rear-end collision where the appellate court partially affirmed a lower court's summary judgment on liability but reversed the finding that the appellant was solely at fault. The court found that issues of comparative negligence should have been decided by a
• Restal v. Nocera
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-03-08
  The appellate court affirmed partial summary judgment on the appellant's negligence in a rear-end collision but reversed the finding that the appellant was solely at fault. The court found that issues of material fact existed regarding the appellee's comparative negligence, neces
• Ferrel L. Bodiford v. Kenyattos Andre Rollins
  173 So. 3d 1074· Fla. 5th DCA· 2015-08-07
  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% comp
• Freeman
  Del.· 2010-07-08
  The Delaware Supreme Court held that a liver biopsy can be considered a "surgical procedure" under 18 Del. C. § 6853(e)(3), and that performing such a procedure which results in the retrieval of kidney tissue constitutes a procedure on the "wrong organ or part of the patient's bo
• Marcellus v. Cronan
  963 So. 2d 364· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-08-29
  Appellant Marcellus appealed a jury verdict in a negligence case arising from an automobile rear-end collision. The trial court denied her request for a jury instruction on the presumption of negligence in rear-end accidents because the defendant presented sufficient evidence tha
• McGRATH v. Ward N. Am., Inc.
  955 So. 2d 25· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-02-07
• Klarides v. Haydee V. Maher
  852 So. 2d 337· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-08-08
  Diane Klarides appealed a summary judgment entered against her in a negligent operation motor vehicle case after a rear-end collision. The court reversed, finding that Klarides provided a substantial and reasonable explanation for the rear-end impact, thereby rebutting the presum
• Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Abraham Chevrolet-Miami Inc.
  832 So. 2d 198· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-11-27
  The court held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence when a bailed vehicle is stolen and unrecovered.
• Reiver v. PAZ
  802 So. 2d 413· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-12-05
• Victor Toro, M.D. v. Davis
  752 So. 2d 614· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-04-16
• Papi Express, Inc. v. Dosal Tobacco Corp.
  677 So. 2d 1314· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-07-31
  Papi Express appeals a summary judgment awarding damages to Dosal Tobacco Corp. for stolen goods that Papi Express agreed to deliver. The court reverses, holding that a bailor-bailee relationship existed and that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment because
• State Farm Mut. Auto. v. Lathrop
  586 So. 2d 1125· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-07-31
  State Farm appeals a trial court's award of attorneys' fees and costs as sanctions for unreasonably rejecting a $25,000 offer of judgment in an automobile accident case where the jury awarded $90,000. The appellate court reverses, holding that the trial court failed to make the r