McGill v. DION'S NURSERY & TRANSPORT SERVS.
59 So. 3d 388
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- McGill and wife sue Perez and Dion's Nursery for injuries from a traffic crash on U.S. 27 in the early morning darkness.
- Perez turned from a side road onto U.S. 27, merging into the southbound lane and causing McGill’s truck to rear-end him.
- Defendants sought summary judgment premised on a rebuttable presumption that the following driver is negligent in a rear-end collision.
- McGill disputed the facts and presented evidence suggesting Perez may have been negligent (yield, speed, maintenance of lights).
- The magistrate recommended summary judgment; the circuit court adopted and entered judgment for defendants; the court reversed and remanded for trial.
- Facts in dispute included whether fog or wet road existed, whether Perez’s merge speed was safe, and whether Perez realized he had erred by merging.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper under the rear-end presumption | McGill argues disputed facts rebut the presumption | Perez/Dion's contend the presumption resolved the issue | Not proper; disputes preclude summary judgment |
| Whether disputed facts about yield, speed, or lane change preclude judgment | McGill alleges facts may show Perez failed to yield or was negligent | Saleme supports entry based on lack of facts showing negligence by lead car | Precluded; facts should be determined by a jury on remand |
| Whether evidence could show lead-driver negligence creating shared liability | McGill could show Perez as lead driver negligent | Lead-driver negligence cannot be ruled out; jury should allocate fault | Jury issues remain; shared-liability considerations for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulle v. Boggs, 174 So.2d 26 (Fla. 1965) (presumption of following-driver negligence can be rebutted by evidence)
- Itiat v. Foskey, 28 So.3d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (disputed facts about lead car’s sudden changes preclude summary judgment)
- Davis v. Chips Express, Inc., 676 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing summary judgment where lighting and speed facts disputed)
- McCloud v. Swanson, 681 So.2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (jury should resolve fault when lead driver may have changed lanes or stopped unexpectedly)
- Sims v. Cristinzio, 898 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (evidence of lead driver negligence allows apportionment of damages)
- Saleme v. Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 963 So.2d 969 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (fully developed trial evidence; not applicable where summary judgment rests on disputed facts)
- Shafran v. Parrish, 787 So.2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (standard for granting summary judgment; de novo review)
- Gall Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (recognizes de novo standard on summary judgment review)