South Florida Car Accident Law Blog

Under certain circumstances, state law presumes that a Florida rear end auto accident is caused by the rear driver in the accident. In Sorel v. Koonce, the First District Court of Appeal explains how the presumption works and when it should be applied.

Cindy Sorel was injured when in a rear end accident when her car was hit from behind by a Comcast van driven by Troy Koonce. She filed a negligence action against both Koonce and Comcast, asserting that Koonce was responsible for the accident.

Sorel was seated in the front passenger seat - her husband was driving and their son was seated in the back - when the accident happened. The Sorels' car was the second of three waiting for a green left turn arrow at a traffic light. The Comcast van was directly behind them. Each of the three cars began to move forward when the light turned green. The Sorels testified at trial that, as they were turning, a car ran a red light through the intersection, which caused Mr. Sorel to brake. When he did, the Comcast van collided into the back of the Sorels' vehicle.

The trial court rejected Plaintiff's request for a directed verdict. After a jury found that her injury was not caused by Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a new trial, asserting that the trial court should have entered a verdict in her favor.

"Case law has identified a rebuttable 'presumption of negligence' in favor of the front driver in a rear-end collision," the First District noted in reversing the trial court's decision. Specifically, the presumption is that the rear driver's actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident and any resulting injuries, according to the court. However, the rear driver can overcome the presumption by presenting evidence that "fairly and reasonably tends to show" that it is misplaced in a particular case. While proof that the lead driver made a sudden stop is generally insufficient to rebut the presumption, evidence that the sudden stop was "at a time and place where it could not reasonably be expected by the following driver" will serve as a rebuttal, the court explained.

Continue reading "Court Explains Causation Presumption in Florida Rear End Car Accidents - Sorel v. Koonce" »

Doctor testimony often plays a key role in a Florida car accident lawsuit. In Clair v. Perry, Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal takes on the question of whether - and under what circumstances - such testimony should be considered as expert testimony.

Appellee Lindi Perry was injured in a car accident involving a vehicle driven by Appellant Maria Clair. Because Clair admitted that her negligence caused the accident, a trial was held for the limited purpose of determining the amount of damages to which Perry was entitled. At trial, Perry sought to introduce testimony from her treating physician, Dr. Theophilos. Clair objected to the portion of the testimony regarding the issue of whether Perry sustained permanent injury - and thus was likely entitled to additional damages - as a result of the accident. Clair argued that this constituted expert testimony and, as a result, that Perry was required to notify Clair of the testimony prior to trial.

The trial court initially sided with Clair, excluding the portion of Dr. Theophilos' testimony related to permanent injury. Following a verdict in which the jury determined that Perry did not sustain permanent injury in the accident, however, the trial court granted Perry's motion for a new trial, finding that it erred in excluding Dr. Theophilos' injury permanence testimony.

On appeal, the Fourth District affirmed the trial court's new trial order. "Without a new trial, appellee would be substantially prejudiced in her ability to present her case," the Court ruled.

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4) provides that a party to a lawsuit in state court is entitled to discovery of "facts known and opinions held by experts" prior to trial. According to the Court, however, the rule is limited to facts and opinions "acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial." Citing the Third Circuit's 1981 opinion in Frantz v. Golebiewski, the court held that although a doctor is generally considered an expert, a treating physician does not obtain his or her expert knowledge for the purpose of litigation, but instead to treat the patient. Thus, according to the court, a treating physician will not usually be treated as an expert witness subject to Rule 1.280(b)(4).

Continue reading "Doctor Testimony in Florida Car Accident Case: Expert? Clair v. Perry" »

Car accident cases often involve a battle of medical experts, including a doctor hired by the defense to independently examine the person allegedly injured in the accident. In Cascanet v. Allen, Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal explains that such an expert must limit his or her testimony to the opinions rendered in a written report following the examination.

Plaintiff Joshua Cascanet suffered back injuries when the car he was driving was rear ended while stopped at a red light. The vehicle that struck Cascanet's car was driven by Defendant Keri Ann Allen and owned by her father, Defendant John Allen. As the court explains, Defendants' vehicle "'submarined' under the rear of Cascanet's car, lifting it, propelling it forward, and then dropping it to the ground." Cascanet was treated at a local emergency room where it was determined that he'd suffered two herniated discs and a possible third.

At trial Cascanet testified that treatments such as shots and chiropractic work failed to relieve the pain caused by his injury and that the pain continues to persist and, in fact, has worsened over time. His treating physician further testified that Cascanet will likely have to undergo a series of very painful surgical procedures in the future. For the defense, an orthopedic surgeon examined Cascanet and prepared a written report stating that Cascanet's injuries were likely the result of the accident and that surgical treatment may eventually be necessary.

Although Defendants' attorney agreed that the surgeon's testimony would not include any new opinions, the surgeon nevertheless went on to testify that "many studies" have shown that disc herniations can sometimes heal themselves and, as a result, Cascanet might never require surgery. He also indicated that other sources than the accident may have contributed to Cascanet's ongoing pain.

After two hours of deliberation, the jury awarded Cascanet $23,764.57 to cover past medical bills and lost wages. It did not, however, award any future damages, finding that Cascanet did not sustain a permanent injury.

Continue reading "Florida Court Limits Medical Examiner Testimony in Rear End Car Accident Case - Cascanet v. Allen" »

In Henry v. Hoelke, the Fourth District Court of Appeal takes on the failure to wear a seatbelt defense in a Florida car accident case.

Plaintiff Egline Henry was paralyzed when the car she was driving with her three-year-old daughter and a friend was struck by Defendant Jena Hoelke's vehicle as Defendant made a left into oncoming traffic. At trial, Plaintiff indicated that she did not brake before the impact because didn't see the other car until the collision. According to the court, "[t]he force of the impact caused Plaintiff's vehicle to rotate in different directions, roll over, and eventually come down on the driver's side." As a result of the accident, Plaintiff suffered a dislocated vertebrae which pinched her spinal cord and rendered her paralyzed.

Defendant argued that Plaintiff was at least partially liable for her injuries because she was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident. Although both Plaintiff and her adult passenger testified that she was in fact wearing a seatbelt when the collision occurred, Co-Defendant Stephen McCulloch testified that he did not see Plaintiff wearing a seatbelt after the accident. Furthermore, an expert testified that Plaintiff's medical records did not show the type of bruising or abrasions in areas that would indicate that she was wearing a seatbelt. However, the expert indicated that he could not rule out the possibility that she was wearing a seatbelt. He also said that Plaintiff could have suffered the same injuries if she had been wearing a seatbelt, adding "seat belts in vehicles can't protect occupants in rollovers because they were designed for frontal collisions."

The trial court denied Plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, in which she argued that Defendant failed to introduce sufficient evidence to argue that Plaintiff was not wearing her seatbelt at the time of the accident and that this caused her injuries. Defendant, on the other hand, argued that a jury could infer that Plaintiff was not belted based on the testimony of McCulloch and the expert. The trial court denied the motion for directed verdict. The jury attributed 65% negligence to Defendant and 35% negligence to Plaintiff and awarded Plaintiff more than $4 million in damages.

On appeal, the Fourth District reversed the trial court's decision on the directed verdict motion, finding that there was not competent evidence linking Plaintiff's injuries and her alleged failure to wear a seatbelt. Citing its 1994 decision in Zurline v. Levesque, the court held that "for a defendant to submit a seatbelt defense to the jury, the defendant must present competent evidence that plaintiff's failure to wear the seatbelt caused or substantially contributed to her injuries." In this case however, the court found that Defendant failed to introduce "any" evidence showing that Plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident because both McCulloch and the expert testified that they were not sure whether she was belted. Furthermore, even if she were not wearing a seatbelt, "Defendant failed to present competent evidence establishing that Plaintiff's failure to wear her seatbelt caused her injuries." As a result, the court reversed the decision and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of a directed verdict in Plaintiff's favor.

Continue reading "Court: Paralyzed Car Accident Plaintiff Not Injured By Alleged Failure to Wear Seatbelt - Henry v. Hoelke" »