275 So. 3d 831
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- On Jan. 17, 2017, Samuel Rosario was driving a Freightliner in the center eastbound lane and slowed for a red light when Jon Lopez rear-ended the truck; Lopez died from injuries sustained in the collision.
- Rosario testified he was stopping in his lane, wheels straight, intending to go straight when he felt an impact.
- The Freightliner had a forward-facing dashcam; footage shows the truck in the center lane slowing, then being struck from behind and forced left into the vehicle ahead.
- The Estate produced eyewitness testimony (David Mendez) saying the Freightliner swerved from the center into the left lane immediately before impact, and an expert affidavit concluding part of the truck was in the right lane at collision.
- Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing Lopez is presumed negligent for rear-ending Rosario and the dashcam footage flatly contradicts and renders the Estate’s evidence incompetent. The trial court granted summary judgment.
- The district court reversed, holding that under Florida summary judgment standards the competing evidence created genuine issues of material fact for a jury; the court also certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court about whether video that "completely negates" opposing evidence should be an exception to current summary judgment rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lopez’s rear-end collision creates a presumption Lopez was negligent and sole cause | Presumption exists but can be rebutted by evidence that Rosario negligently changed lanes or otherwise caused the crash | Presumption stands; dashcam corroborates Rosario and defeats contrary eyewitness/expert evidence | Court: Presumption not dispositive here because genuine factual disputes remain that a jury must resolve |
| Whether dashcam video that contradicts plaintiff’s evidence can be treated as dispositive on summary judgment | Eye-witness and expert affidavit create triable factual issues despite video | Dashcam ‘‘blatantly contradicts’’ and therefore renders plaintiff’s evidence incompetent (relying on Scott) | Court: Under Florida summary judgment law, court cannot weigh credibility; video, even compelling, did not eliminate all material factual disputes |
| Whether trial court properly weighed evidence/assessed credibility on summary judgment | Plaintiff: Trial court improperly assessed credibility by favoring video over eyewitness/expert | Defendant: Court may consider objective video that refutes opposing evidence | Court: Reversed — trial court improperly weighed conflicting evidence and adjudged credibility at summary judgment |
| Whether Florida should adopt an exception permitting final summary judgment when unaltered video ‘‘completely negates’’ opposing evidence | N/A (Estate opposed such bright-line rule) | Appellees implicitly support a rule allowing dispositive video to dispose of cases pretrial | Court certified to Fla. Supreme Court whether such an exception should exist (question of great public importance) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (appellate standard: indulge all inferences for nonmoving party)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985) (summary judgment inappropriate unless facts crystallized)
- Sierra v. Shevin, 767 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (trial court may not weigh evidence or judge credibility on summary judgment)
- Juno Indus., Inc. v. Heery Int'l, 646 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (court may not consider weight of conflicting evidence on summary judgment)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (under federal standard, video that "blatantly contradicts" testimony can eliminate genuine issue of material fact)
- Wiggins v. Fla. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 209 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 2017) (video evidence can refute testimony in administrative context)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (federal summary judgment standard allows court to grant judgment when record could not lead reasonable jury to find for nonmoving party)