107 So. 3d 348
Fla.2012Background
- Cevallos challenges a Fourth DCA ruling that foreclosed rebuttal of the rear-driver presumption in rear-end collisions.
- Birge v. Charron (Fla. 2012) held rear-end cases are governed by comparative negligence and presumption is rebuttable.
- The trial court directed verdict against Cevallos based on the rear-driver presumption.
- Trial evidence showed Rideout was allegedly negligent (cell phone use, speed, downhill hill) and Cevallos slowed but could not avoid impact.
- The Fourth DCA decision in Cevallos conflicted with Birge and other district court authorities as to rebuttal evidence.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflict and quash the Cevallos ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rear-driver presumption is rebuttable | Cevallos argues presumption can be overcome with front-driver negligence evidence. | Rideout contends presumption remains unrebutted regardless of front-driver evidence. | Presumption is rebuttable; jury should decide comparative fault. |
| Whether Birge v. Charron controls the result | Birge requires submission of fault issues to the jury when evidence supports front-driver negligence. | Cevallos should be decided under earlier rule treating presumption as sole proximate cause absent complete front-driver negligence. | Birge controls; directed verdict wrongly entered. |
| Whether the case conflicts with First District decisions | Conflict exists with First DCA decisions allowing rebuttal. | No conflict with First DCA decisions, or not essential to resolution here. | Conflict resolved in favor of Birge; remand for disposition consistent with Birge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Birge v. Charron, 107 So.3d 350 (Fla. 2012) (rear-end cases governed by comparative negligence; rebuttal of presumption when front-driver negligent)
- Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Van Dyke, 590 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (front-driver negligence can raise comparative fault; presumption may be overcome)
- Johnson v. Deep South Crane Rentals, Inc., 634 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (front-driver negligence evidence interacts with rear-driver presumption)
- Pollock v. Goldberg, 651 So.2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (rear-driver presumption can be dissipated by evidence of front-driver fault)
- Cleaveland v. Florida Power & Light, Inc., 895 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (lead-driver negligence allows jury to apportion fault)
- Jefferies v. Amery Leasing, Inc., 698 So.2d 368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (if lead-driver negligent, jury should determine liability)