Doyle v. Faford, 86-2259
| Decision Date | 07 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2259,86-2259 |
| Citation | 517 So.2d 778,12 Fla. L. Weekly 148 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 148 Danny DOYLE, Appellant, v. Tena FAFORD, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David K. Wittek, of Wright & Fulford, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
Robert M. Moletteire, of Reinman, Harrell, Silberhorn and Graham, P.A., Melbourne, for appellees.
This is an appeal by Danny Doyle, the defendant below, from an order granting a new trial to the Fafords, the plaintiffs below.
Mrs. Faford was in her mobile home when it was struck by Doyle's automobile as he was speeding through the trailer park. The home was knocked off its blocks by the impact. The jury returned a zero verdict.
It was uncontroverted that Mrs. Faford suffered some injury as a result of Doyle's negligence. In Westbrook v. All Points, Inc., 384 So.2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), the court noted that the rule in Florida has been concisely stated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth District:
It would ... appear that a zero verdict in Florida may be sustained only where there is conflicting evidence as to whether the plaintiff was in fact injured ...
384 So.2d at 975, quoting Parker v. Wideman, 380 F.2d 433, 437 (5th Cir.1967). While a jury may return a zero verdict when it entirely disbelieves that the plaintiff suffered any injury, here there was a dispute only as to the extent of the injuries. In these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial.
However, we agree with Doyle that the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law applies here. 1 Mrs. Faford, while not an occupant of a "motor vehicle" as defined by the no-fault statute, 2 was injured by a motor vehicle which proximately caused her injuries. Under the no-fault law, actual physical contact by the automobile with the insured is not required but rather the test is whether the motor vehicle was the proximate cause of the injuries. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company v. Castagna, 368 So.2d 348 (Fla.1979); Royal Indemnity Company v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 307 So.2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). In Royal Indemnity, the plaintiff received PIP benefits for injuries sustained while seated at a bus bench which was struck by a parked car which in turn was hit by a moving car. In the present case, Mrs. Faford's injuries were proximately caused by the motor vehicle driven by Doyle and hence the no-fault law was applicable.
The cases relied on by the Fafords, Santiagoherrera v. Stout, 470 So.2d 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), and Scherzer v. Beron, 455 So.2d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), are distinguishable. In Scherzer, this court held that the threshold requirements of the no-fault law did not apply to a motorcyclist who filed suit against the defendant motor vehicle operator because a motorcycle is not a "motor vehicle" under the no-fault law. Based on Scherzer, this court in Santiagoherrera held that the threshold requirements did not have to be met by a plaintiff who sought to recover damages for personal injuries she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Watts
...of physical contact with the hit-and-run vehicle. Lowd v. Cal Kovens Construction Corp., 546 So.2d 1087 (Fla.1989); Doyle v. Faford, 517 So.2d 778 (Fla.1988); Brown v. Progressive Mut. Ins. Co., 249 So.2d 429, 430 (Fla.1979). Florida law implements a policy of protecting victims of hit-and-......
-
Niglio v. Omaha Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 95-1416
...accident. See Cherwin, 673 So.2d at 113 (plaintiff injured when he dove out of the way of an errant vehicle); Doyle v. Faford, 517 So.2d 778, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)(car struck mobile home containing plaintiff); Royal Indemnity Co. v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 307 So.2d 458 (Fla. 3d DC......
-
Vega v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...whether the plaintiff was in fact injured. Westbrook v. All Points, Inc., 384 So.2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). See also Doyle v. Faford, 517 So.2d 778 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Although her disability rating varied from physician to physician, the fact of Mrs. Vega's permanent partial disability wa......
-
Milgram v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...1996) (holding that a plaintiff could recover when he was injured when he dove out of the way of an errant vehicle); Doyle v. Faford, 517 So.2d 778 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (holding plaintiff could recover when motor vehicle struck mobile home containing It can be inferred that Kudla's operation......