251 So. 3d 992
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Rear-end collision on July 9, 2014: Ninibeth Meyers (rear driver) hit a car driven by Mr. Shontz with passenger Bonneva Shontz; Plaintiff sued for personal-injury damages; jury returned defense verdict on a special interrogatory combining negligence and causation.
- Key factual disputes: whether Meyers was negligent (she claimed the Shontzes suddenly changed lanes, leaving no room to stop) and whether the accident caused or aggravated Shontz’s long‑standing back problems (scoliosis, prior 1995 accident, prior treatments).
- Evidence at trial: testimony from Meyers, Mr. Shontz, and a third-party driver (Bozick) about lane change/timing; conflicting expert medical testimony about causation; post‑accident MRI but no pre‑accident MRI; evidence of prior spine issues and nondisclosed prior treatments/incidents.
- Procedural history: jury answered “no” to a combined negligence/causation interrogatory; trial court entered judgment for defendants, then granted plaintiff’s motion for new trial without a hearing, stating its recollection of one witness’s testimony differed from defendants’ description and granting a new trial “on the basis of liability” but not addressing causation.
- Appellate holding below: Second District reversed the order granting a new trial and remanded for reconsideration because the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard (it relied on its recollection of one witness rather than assessing whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Shontz (Plaintiff) Argument | Meyers (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard in granting a new trial | Trial court properly granted new trial because evidence overwhelmingly established negligence and causation | Trial court erred by relying on its recollection of one witness rather than determining whether verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Court held trial court applied incorrect legal standard; remanded for reconsideration under the manifest‑weight standard |
| Whether the rear‑driver presumption of negligence is dispositive here | Rear‑driver presumption applies and supports granting new trial | Presumption was rebutted by testimony that the front vehicle suddenly changed lanes and conflicting causation evidence; jury could properly find no liability | Court explained presumption is rebuttable; evidence of sudden lane change and conflicting causation evidence meant the presumption could be rebutted and required full manifest‑weight analysis by the trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Meadowbrook Meat Co. v. Catinella, 196 So. 3d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (trial court may grant new trial when verdict is against manifest weight of evidence)
- Van v. Schmidt, 122 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2013) (appellate review standards for new‑trial orders; deference vs. de novo review for legal errors)
- Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1999) (trial judge must not act as super‑juror; manifest‑weight standard limits new trials)
- Birge v. Charron, 107 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 2012) (presumption of negligence for rear‑end collisions is rebuttable)
- Eppler v. Tarmac Am., Inc., 752 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2000) (discussion of rebuttable presumptions and burden of production)
- Jiminez v. Faccone, 98 So. 3d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (unexpected lane change can rebut rear‑driver presumption)
- Alford v. Cool Cargo Carriers, Inc., 936 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (same)
- Department of Transportation v. Rosario, 782 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (new‑trial reversal despite diagnostic expenses where preexisting conditions, conflicting experts, and nondisclosures exist)
- Schwartz v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 155 So. 3d 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (conflicting expert opinions and nondisclosures can justify jury finding of no causation)
- Finkel v. Batista, 202 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (defense expert’s assumed necessity of testing can be rejected by jury if plaintiff’s credibility questioned)