403 So.3d 397
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2025Background
- Brian Baxter died when the car he was riding in, driven by his brother Daniel Baxter, collided with the rear of a tractor trailer driven by John Preston before sunrise on a dark highway at high speed.
- John Preston, driving an 80,000-pound tractor trailer, slowed slightly when he saw vehicles off the shoulder, then suddenly braked when a vehicle entered his lane.
- Evidence from dashcam and data shows Preston slowed only slightly before braking hard, and the Baxter car braked only 1-1.5 seconds before impact.
- Two eyewitnesses testified they did not see any lights on Preston’s trailer before the collision.
- Betty Baxter, as representative of Brian’s estate, sued Preston and the Venezia entities for wrongful death, arguing negligence in the operation and lighting of the trailer.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no evidence of Preston's negligence and applying a presumption of rear-driver negligence to the Baxters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a genuine dispute of material fact as to Preston’s negligence? | Evidence disputed whether trailer lights were illuminated and whether Preston's actions were reasonable. | No evidence Preston was negligent; lights were working and he acted reasonably. | Yes, genuine dispute exists; summary judgment reversed. |
| Does the presumption of rear-driver negligence preclude claim? | Presumption does not preclude claim where evidence shows possible negligence by the front driver. | Lack of explanation regarding rear driver's negligence bars recovery. | Presumption does not bar claim if evidence supports front driver negligence. |
| Did trial court improperly weigh evidence or witness credibility? | Eyewitness testimony supported disputed facts, not for summary judgment stage to weigh. | Eyewitnesses were not attentive, did not rebut Preston's account. | Trial court erred by weighing evidence and witness credibility. |
| Are Venezia entities vicariously liable if Preston was negligent? | Venezia entities are responsible for Preston’s comparative fault. | No fault on Preston, so no vicarious liability. | Genuine factual dispute as to Preston precludes summary judgment for Venezia. |
Key Cases Cited
- Birge v. Charron, 107 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 2012) (Presumption of rear-driver negligence does not bar claim where there is evidence of front driver negligence)
- Eppler v. Tarmac Am., Inc., 752 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2000) (Rear-end collision presumption does not address front driver's negligence)
- Lassiter v. Citizens Prop. Ins., 386 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (Summary judgment review must not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations)
- Jiminez v. Faccone, 98 So. 3d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (Disputed facts on vehicle illumination preclude summary judgment in rear-end collision)
- Davis v. Chips Express, Inc., 676 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (Factual disputes about lighting and speed preclude summary judgment in rear-end collision cases)