Sorel v. Koonce
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1931
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Cindy L. Sorel, now Cindy L. Ebner, appeals a final judgment in a negligence action arising from a rear-end collision with a Comcast of Greater Florida/Georgia, Inc. van driven by Koonce.
- The rear driver (Koonce) collided with Appellant’s car while all were moving at a green arrow left turn at an intersection; Koonce looked away briefly and braked hard but could not avoid the impact.
- There was evidence a third vehicle ran a red light contributing to the accident; testimony also conflicted on whether Appellant’s car fully stopped before impact.
- Appellant moved for a directed verdict arguing a presumption of negligence against the rear driver; the trial court denied, and the jury returned a complete defense verdict.
- Appellant timely sought a new trial alleging error in failing to direct a verdict on negligence; the appellate court reviews directed verdict denials de novo.
- The court withdraws the prior opinion, substitutes this one, and ultimately reverses and remands for a directed verdict in Appellant’s favor on negligence and a new trial on remaining issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rear driver presumption requires a directed verdict for Appellant | Sorel argues the rear driver presumption defeats Appellees' burden | Koonce contends there is a dispute on whether the lead driver’s actions rebut the presumption | Directed verdict in Appellant’s favor warranted |
| Whether the evidence shows the lead driver’s stop was reasonably expected | Sorel contends unrebutted presumption favors lead driver’s negligence | Koonce argues evidence creates a factual question about anticipation of the stop | Evidence supports rebuttal of presumption; not an improper stop |
| What standard governs review of the directed verdict denial | Sorel relies on de novo review of directed verdict rulings | Koonce asserts factual disputes should go to jury | Court applies de novo standard and grants relief when appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Clampitt v. D.J. Spencer Sales, 786 So.2d 570 (Fla. 2001) (presumption of negligence in rear-end collisions and proper rebuttal standards)
- Tocher v. Asmus, 743 So.2d 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (short stop at busy intersections can impose duty to follow safely)
- Eppler v. Tarmac America, Inc., 752 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2000) (abrupt and arbitrary braking may rebut rear-driver presumption)
- Hunter v. Ward, 812 So.2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (directed verdict standard in negligence cases reviewed de novo)
- Meyers v. City of Jacksonville, 754 So.2d 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, damages)
- Paterson v. Deeb, 472 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (negligence elements as foundational framework)