Douglas-Seibert v. Riccucci
84 So. 3d 1086
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- In a rear-end collision, Douglas-Seibert sues Riccucci (rear driver) and Tarmac America for negligence.
- The trial court denied a directed verdict on Riccucci's negligence but granted one on Douglas-Seibert's lack of negligence.
- A jury found Riccucci and Tarmac not liable; the judgment was entered accordingly.
- Douglas-Seibert moved for directed verdict arguing a rebuttable presumption of rear-driver negligence applied.
- The court of appeal reverses, concluding Riccucci failed to rebut the presumption, and remands for directed verdict on Riccucci's negligence and a new trial on remaining issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rear-driver presumption can be rebutted | Douglas-Seibert, as rear driver, creates presumption of negligence. | Riccucci needed to present a reasonable explanation (sudden stop or other exceptions). | Yes; the presumption was not rebutted by Riccucci's evidence. |
| Whether evidence of a sudden stop or illegal/improper stop suffices to rebut the presumption | N/A | Evidence supported sudden-stop and/or illegal/improper-stop exceptions. | Suppression of sudden-stop unless not reasonably anticipatable; here not sufficient to rebut the presumption. |
| Whether Douglas-Seibert was illegally or improperly stopped | N/A | Douglas-Seibert failed to follow after SUV resumed movement; stop was illegal/improper. | Not illegally or improperly stopped; reasonable to stop to avoid collision. |
| Whether the evidence supports entry of a directed verdict for Riccucci on negligence | Riccucci did not rebut the presumption. | The evidence supports exceptions to the presumption. | The evidence was insufficient to rebut the presumption; directed verdict for Riccucci warranted. |
| Procedural consequence of reversing on negligence | N/A | Remand for new trial on remaining issues if needed. | Reversed and remanded for entry of directed verdict on Riccucci's negligence and new trial on other issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clampitt v. D.J. Spencer Sales, 786 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 2001) (rear driver presumption and necessity to show lead-driver improbability)
- Saleme v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 963 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (recognizes four rebuttal explanations to the presumption)
- Alford v. Cool Cargo Carriers, Inc., 936 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (one of the recognized rebuttal scenarios)
- Tozier v. Jarvis, 469 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (early articulation of rebuttal concepts)
- Pierce v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 582 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (stopping in anticipation of traffic conditions required)
- Tacher v. Asmus, 743 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (busy-intersection sudden braking context)
- Tenny v. Allen, 858 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (illustrates reasonable anticipation of red-light-related stops)