Shirey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
94 So. 3d 619
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Shireys amended complaint against State Farm, Sabinsons, and Sabinson for injuries from a motor-vehicle collision.
- Plaintiff Luanna Shirey allegedly sustained permanent injuries; Michael Shirey asserted a loss-of-consortium claim.
- Accident chronology: vehicle 1 slowed for a right turn, vehicle 2 driven by Purcell, vehicle 3 by William Sabinson; Luanna’s vehicle rear-ended Sabinson and pushed him into Purcell.
- Lead drivers testified they slowed in response to a phantom vehicle and did not slam on brakes; the Shireys’ traffic reconstruction expert claimed abrupt stopping by the leads.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants; on appeal, the issue is whether the rear-driver presumption or comparative fault defeats the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rear-driver presumption can be overcome. | Shirey contends lead-driver negligence or abrupt stopping rebuttal evidence exists. | State Farm and Sabinsons argue the rear-driver presumption requires lead-driver negligence; no rebuttal evidence. | Presumption can be rebutted only with evidence of lead-driver negligence; here none |
| Whether there is material evidence of negligence by lead drivers. | Shireys rely on Harris to show abrupt/arbitrary stopping by leads. | Leads maintained safe operation; no abrupt or arbitrary stop established. | No material evidence of lead-driver negligence; abrupt braking, if any, was appropriate |
| Whether Cevallos governs causation or comparative fault in this context. | Cevallos supports rebutting the presumption and applying comparative fault. | Cevallos distinguishes lead-driver conduct; presumption controls absent evidence of lead-driver negligence. | Court rejects revisiting Cevallos; no comparative-fault theory warranted without lead-driver negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Cevallos v. Rideout, 18 So.3d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (presumption of rear-driver negligence can be overcome by abrupt, arbitrary stop; need lead-driver negligence evidence)
- Pierce v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 582 So.2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (rear-driver presumption requires evidence of lead-driver negligence to rebut)
- Sorel v. Koonce, 53 So.3d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (arbitrary stop vs. appropriate response to road activity)
- Moran v. Fla. Sec. Elecs., Inc., 861 So.2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (rear-driver presumption; directed verdict when no rebuttal evidence)
- Tozier v. Jarvis, 469 So.2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (mechanical failures or illegal stops can rebut presumption)
- Master Tech Satellite, Inc. v. Mastec N. Am., Inc., 49 So.3d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (conclusory affidavits cannot create triable issue)