South Florida Car Accident Law Blog

Every day, the Sunshine State's roads and highways are full of drivers headed to and from work. When one of those drivers causes an accident, not only may he or she be liable for any injuries that result, but - in some cases - the driver's employer may also be responsible. In Jones v. Latex, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals considers a suit against both a negligent motorist and his employer.

Wenford Killings died in a car accident in Callahan, Florida when a pick-up truck driven by Donald Cone rear-ended the car that Killings was driving. Cone was working for Latex Construction Company at the time, laying gas pipeline on a moving worksite, which was making its way from Georgia through Florida. Elva Jones sued both Cone and Latex on behalf of Killings' estate, alleging that Cone's negligence caused the accident and that Latex was liable under the legal doctrine respondeat superior, which provides that an employer is generally responsible for the actions of its workers performed in the course of employment.

While both Cone and Latex admitted that he was negligent and caused the accident, Latex argued that it could not be held liable because Cone was not the company's agent at the time the accident occurred. The only evidence presented at trial regarding this issue was the testimony of the police officer who responded to the scene of the accident. The officer testified that Cone told the officer that he was on his way to work when his car plowed into Killings' vehicle.

At the close of the trial, the district court granted Latex's motion for directed verdict, ruling that Jones failed to provide sufficient evidence on which a jury could find Latex liable.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. "The general rule is that an employee who is going to or coming from work is not acting within the scope of his employment," the court noted, citing Section 440.092(2), Florida Statutes.

Continue reading "Suing a Driver's Employer in a Florida Car Accident Case - Jones v. Latex" »

Florida car accident lawsuits are often won or lost based on witness testimony, including that of both the drivers in the accident and others who saw it happen. In Hutchings v. Liles, the First District Court of Appeals considered a case in which one important witness - the driver accused of negligence - was nowhere to be found.

Plaintiff Tara Hutchings was injured in a car accident involving a vehicle driven by Patricia Liles. Hutchings filed a personal injury suit in circuit court alleging that the accident was caused by Liles' negligence.

Prior to trial, Defendant's counsel informed the court that he was having trouble locating his client, who had told counsel that she was taking a temporary job in Oklahoma. As a result, counsel sought to introduce his client's testimony in an earlier deposition in place of her appearing as a witness at trial. Rule 1.330, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to use a witness deposition in lieu of live testimony under certain circumstances, including when the witness is dead or unable to attend because of age, illness, infirmity or imprisonment. Deposition testimony can also be used under the rule where a court finds "that the witness is at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the state, unless it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the deposition."

Plaintiff objected, and raised the objection again after the trial began, arguing that Defendant's counsel failed to sufficiently establish that Defendant was out of the state or at least 100 miles away. Counsel simply did not know where his client was, according to Plaintiff, and he could not prove that she was out of area. Furthermore, even if counsel were to prove that Defendant was in Oklahoma, Plaintiff argued that he would nevertheless be prevented from using the deposition testimony because Defendant's voluntary acceptance of a job assignment constituted an absence procured by the defense.

The trial court rejected Plaintiff's argument, ruling that counsel could introduce Defendant's testimony because he provided sufficient evidence to show that she was at least 100 miles away and that she had not procured her own absence. The trial proceeded and the jury returned a verdict finding that Defendant was not negligent in the accident.

Continue reading "Florida Court Allows Car Accident Case to Proceed Without Defendant - Hutchings v. Liles" »

Florida auto accident litigation, like many other lawsuits, often involves conflicting recollections of the facts. In Miller v. Perez, the Second District Court of Appeal explains that this makes certain cases difficult to decide in the summary judgment stage.

Plaintiff Truman McGill was injured in a car accident when the tractor-trailer he was driving allegedly rear-ended a truck driven by Defendant Martin Perez. The accident occurred when Mr. Perez turned right to travel south on to the road on which McGill was also traveling. McGill's tractor-trailer collided with Perez's truck when Perez merged into the right-hand lane.

McGill sued Perez for negligence. Prior to trial, Perez filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that McGill could present no set of facts to overcome the presumption that the following driver in a rear end collision is negligent. The presumption is that the rear driver's actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident and any resulting injuries in a rear end accident. The circuit court agreed with Perez, granting summary judgment in his favor.

On appeal, the court noted that "the presumption that the following driver in a motor vehicle accident is negligent can be rebutted when that driver 'produces evidence which fairly and reasonably tends to show that the real fact is not as presumed.'" In this case, according to the court, a number of factual issues remained to be resolved that may ultimately rebut the presumption. For example, "the parties differed about whether fog was present and about whether the road was wet" along with the question of whether Mr. Perez's lights were on at the time of the accident. More importantly, McGill alleged that Perez failed to properly yield before merging and did not have enough time to accelerate when he merged.

The court held that because there remained disputes as to facts material to the rear-end presumption, summary judgment was not appropriate. Furthermore, even if McGill cannot overcome the rear end presumption, evidence indicating that the lead driver may have been negligent raises issues of shared liability and proportionate damages, which should be determined by a jury rather than at the summary judgment stage. Florida operates under a comparative negligence system, in which a person who is injured partly due to his or her own negligence can hold another negligent party proportionately liable. Thus, if McGill can show negligence on Perez's part, he may be entitled to proportionate damages.

Continue reading "Florida Court Reverses Ruling in Tractor-Trailer Rear End Accident - Miller v. Perez" »

In Searcy v. Zawackis, the Fourth District Court of Appeal explains that negligence is a two-way street in a Florida car accident lawsuit.

Sue Ellen Kelly was killed when the car she was driving collided with a FedEx truck at an intersection in Palm Beach County. The accident occurred shortly after Hurricane Wilma struck the area, as a result of which the traffic lights at the intersection were out of service. Florida law requires motorists to treat an intersection with inoperable traffic lights as a four-way stop. The FedEx truck allegedly had stopped at the intersection facing west just before the accident. As the truck turned left to head south, Kelly's car - headed northbound - allegedly entered the intersection and collided into the truck.

The personal representative for Kelly's estate sued both FedEx and the driver, alleging that her negligence caused the accident.

A driver who was headed northbound at the time of the accident testified at a deposition that Kelly was speeding when she entered the intersection - the driver said he was going 42 miles-per-hour (the speed limit was 35) and that Kelly passed him "really going fast" - and did not stop at the intersection before crashing into the truck. A southbound driver also testified during a deposition, stating that the truck driver looked right and left, then looked down for two or three seconds before looking right again and then straight ahead before proceeding into the intersection when Kelly's car "came flying" in. The FedEx driver testified at deposition that she did not look down at any time before moving into the intersection.

Although the circuit court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Fourth District reversed the decision on appeal, finding that "[D]efendants did not show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact regarding the FedEx driver's alleged lack of negligence." According to the court, the question of whether the truck driver looked down before pulling into the intersection is material because the delay caused "may have been sufficient for her to see the decedent speeding towards the intersection in the northbound lanes."

Continue reading "Florida Court Reverses Ruling in Palm Beach Car Accident at Intersection Where Traffic Lights Were not Working - Searcy v. Zawackis" »