195 So. 2d 606 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1967
Plaintiff’s fourth and sixth amended complaints were dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state causes of action. Plaintiff declined to amend further, whereupon trial judge dismissed his actions with prejudice.
Plaintiff’s amended complaints were based upon the same occurrence — a collision on a through highway involving three vehicles. The relevant paragraphs of his complaints are identical.
Ignoring evidentiary matters, legal conclusions and other defects,
The operator of a leading vehicle-has a duty to use the road in the usual way. Gosma v. Adams, 1931, 102 Fla. 305, 135 So. 806, 78 A.L.R. 1193. Consequently,, such an operator may be held liable, if',, without notice, he stops or decreases speed’ so suddenly that the operator of the following vehicle is not reasonably able to avoid
Whether a leading motorist had opportunity to signal a sudden stop or decrease in speed ordinarily will lie peculiarly within his knowledge. Facts which lie more within the knowledge of an adversary may be averred generally. Williams v. Ahrenholz, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 304, 307. Furthermore, whether a leading motorist had opportunity to signal frequently will have to be inferred by the jury from numerous facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence.
Reversed and remanded.
. “In construing pleading the useless does not vitiate the useful.” Williams v. Ahrenholz, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 304, 305. In addition to pleading “useless” evidence appellee pleaded several sets of circumstances in a single paragraph in violation of R.C.P. 1.110(f). This is not fatal if the complaints state causes of action.
. Plaintiff’s complaints allege that Defendant-Swieord was operating a “farm, tractor and trailer,” but we do not understand that this fact is necessarily determinative. '
. Cf. Haislet v. Crowley, Fla.App.1964, 170 So.2d 88.
. Such allegations are not wholly equivocal since they do negative unavoidable accident (lack of opportunity to give notice). Where a complaint is not so vague, indefinite and ambiguous as to wholly fail to state a cause of action, a motion for more definite statement is the proper vehicle by which to seek dissipation of vagueness or ambiguity. Frisch v. Kelly, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 252.