Latest Headlines
- Tate Showband Of The South Has A New Director
- Pine Meadow’s Cassi McGee Received Florida Outstanding Teacher Leadership Award
- Highway 168 Bridge Reopened Friday After Repair Completed
- Bicyclist Critical After Being Struck By Vehicle In Century
- Two Century Correctional Officers Charged With Smuggling Drugs Into The Prison
- More Details Released In Case Of Man Accused Of Killing Estranged Wife
- Florida Forest Service Announces $2 Million For Florida Landowners To Improve Forest Health
- Friends Of The Library Hot Summer Book Sale Going On Through Sunday
- Escambia Animal Shelter Has Free Cat And Dog Adoptions Through July 31
- Martorella’s Clutch Hit Ignites Blue Wahoos Walk-Off Win
Florida High Court: Either Driver Can Be At Fault In Rear-End Crashes
November 23, 2012
Faced with conflicting lower-court decisions, the Florida Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings Wednesday that could give a legal boost to motorists who crash into other vehicles from behind. The cases center, at least in part, on a longstanding legal presumption that rear drivers are negligent in vehicle collisions.
But the justices ruled that the presumption can be rebutted “by the production of evidence from which a jury could conclude that the front driver was negligent in the operation of his or her vehicle.” The court ruled in cases from Seminole and Palm Beach counties.
The Seminole County case, for example, stemmed from a 2007 accident in which Crystal Charron was a passenger on a motorcycle that flipped when its driver tried to avoid hitting the rear end of a car driven by Warren Birge. A circuit court sided with Birge in a resulting lawsuit, but the 5th District Court of Appeal reversed that decision because it said a jury could have found that Birge was negligent.
The Supreme Court opinion said Birge was driving 35 mph and slammed on his brakes “for no objective reason,” surprising other people on the road. “Significantly, this court has never held that the rear-end presumption bars a claim for damages of a rear driver or others in the rearward zone of danger where there is evidence from which a jury could conclude that the front driver defendant was negligent and comparatively at fault in causing the collision,” said the opinion, which was written by Justice Jorge Labarga. The other justices concurred in the decision, though Justice James E.C. Perry was recused.
By The News Service of Florida
Comments
13 Responses to “Florida High Court: Either Driver Can Be At Fault In Rear-End Crashes”
Once you cross pine barron creek on 29 going south you run into a whole different ballgame. people don’t have respect for speed limits, red lights, right of ways,etc. It all comes down to 1 word, Pensacola.
Definitely a good ruling for a change from the Courts!!
REGARDING:
“- – - what a nightmare this ruling will be for dealing with insurance claims. How will damages and injuries be processed if there is a presumption of innocence for both drivers?”
There should always be a presumption of innocence.
Proof of guilt should be required.
Injuries should be processed with medical care.
Insurance companies should be able to figure out what happened and/or fight it out amongst themselves.
AND
“A number of years ago I was involved in an accident on Bayou Boulevard ”
I haven’t been but it’s a wonder. While covering for another school bus driver one afternoon, I was stopped and letting off children at Bayou and 12th with stop arms extended and watched some six or seven cars run the school bus stop arm. I said, “Look at them breaking the law.” One of the students said, “The crazy white lady blows her horn at them.”
It seemed sane to me, so I honked at them too. From what they said, it was a daily event. Still, it would have been nice if they didn’t ignore the safety of children and if the Pensacola Police had protected them.
David for good drivers,
hoping Bayou Blvd gets more of them
In ‘94 my dad was the third car in a wreck. The first car stopped suddenly and the second car slammed into the first car. My dad saw all of this happening and tried to go to the side of the road to miss the wreck but didn’t quite have enough time or space. He hit the rear passenger side of the second car with the driver side of his car-headlight to taillight basically. He was charged with rear ending the second car and the lawyer of the first car went after him for causing the entire wreck. His insurance company said the accident was clearly not his fault but settled out of court anyway. This ruling would have been extremely helpful for him.
Patriot, sorry, I don’t know the statute. All I know is that I had 2 friends involved in multi-car collisions, both at the same intersection on the way to work, both were the 3rd car back from the stop light when they were hit from behind, both got tickets. That was a few years ago and since then I have made a habit of keeping a car length between my car and the vehicle ahead of me at any stop sign or stop light. Recently, I was the 3rd car back from a stop light and was hit. I was not charged, presumably because I didn’t get pushed into the car ahead of me.
Sue Byrd,
Would you be so kind as to give a reference backing up your claim? What state statute or case law are you referring to?
Sue Byrd said: “If you are stopped at a light and get rear-ended, pushing your car into the car ahead of you, you are charged with the accident. FL law is that every car from the 3rd car back is at fault.”
Work for a company that requires us to stop where we can see the rear wheels of the vehicle in front of us touching the pavement in a car or truck, vans further back,ie at least 2 car lengths. Yes you occaisionally have the idiot who pulls in between you and the front vehicle. The rest of the time you realize how hard someone would have to hit you to push you that far. If you keep the one car length per 10 mph and are watching where you are driving(not texting or talking on the phone) you should be able to get stopped even if they slam on the brakes. But then someone might cut between you and the car in front of you. Can’t have that. Let’s follow at 60mph with one, two at the most car length between us so we will be the first at the wreck when someone slams on the brakes.
To David H, if you pull out in front of someone, you are charged with the accident even in cases where you have the right of way.
Chris forgot to mention what a nightmare this ruling will be for dealing with insurance claims. How will damages and injuries be processed if there is a presumption of innocence for both drivers?
I wish the court would addressed another traffic law dealing with rear end collisions. If you are stopped at a light and get rear-ended, pushing your car into the car ahead of you, you are charged with the accident. FL law is that every car from the 3rd car back is at fault. That’s why so many drivers got tickets back when there was a 75 car pile-up on the interstate north of Orlando during a brush fire and dense smoke.
A number of years ago I was involved in an accident on Bayou Boulevard where a dog ran into traffic and everybody slammed on their brakes and pretty much everyone hit the car in front of them. I hit the car in front of me hard enough that I moved my windshield with my head and totaled the vehicle. The judge found that no one was at fault. The lady I hit actually testified on my behalf. There are many circumstances where an accident can be caused by the lead car, such as making a sudden turn with no signal. Police have skills to determine fault. If the lead car is submarined by another car, that means they were HARD on the brakes.
This is good because we have some whack drivers around here! People making right turns on reds because there is 20ft of space between two cars and they try to jam in there, but DO NOT accelerate!
Then we have the idiots that will slam on their brakes and stop to let someone out of a parking lot!! Com’on! If you are already stopped, then let them out, but if your car is MOVING and there are others behind you, you keep the flow of traffic moving!!
Good ruling. When you drive, you are responsible for what you do. If you pull out in front of someone at the last second, they have to slam on brakes to avoid rear ending you. You should be held liable in such cases.
Note that the requirement is that “there is evidence from which a jury could conclude that the front driver defendant was negligent and comparatively at fault in causing the collision”. It’s not a blanket GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card, but a recognition of reality.
In this case it looks like someone slammed on brakes for no other apparent reason than an attempt to kill the motorcyclist behind him.
Well said, Chris1. One is never supposed to drive closer to the car in front than they can stop safely in a sudden brake slam. I thought that’s what I learned in driver’s ed way back when.
Terrible ruling opening a can of worms.
More ivory tower rulings by judges who probably get driven around.
Great for all those tailgaters who love to ride my rear bumper.
A payday for lawyers.
Now every rear end collision will be challenged clogging the courts worse.
Puts cops into the part of trying to know peoples driving intentions.