McNulty v. Cusack, 58
Decision Date | 29 August 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 58,58 |
Parties | F. Jerome McNULTY, Appellant, v. Annie B. CUSACK, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jones, Adams, Paine & Foster, Samuel H. Adams, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
John E. Bollinger, Hamilton, Nason & Butler, Edgar G. Hamilton, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final judgment in a negligence action, entered after a directed verdict for plaintiff as to liability. Annie B. Cusack sued F. Jerome McNulty as the result of a rear-end collision between a car driven by plaintiff and another driven by defendant. Defendant's car ran into the rear of plaintiff's car at an intersection. The jury brought in a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $16,000.
The appellee has filed a motion to strike appellant's brief, motion to dismiss the appeal and a motion to affirm the judgment; all motions pertaining to the fact that no appendix was filed and attached to appellant's brief. Due to the novelty of the question presented by this appeal, the court deems it advisable to deny the three motions, above, since we shall affirm the lower court for the reasons hereinafter stated.
We state the principal question involved here as follows:
'Whether the showing of a rear-end collision and the circumstances under which it occurred, in the absence of explanation, gives rise to a presumption of negligence so as to authorize a directed verdict, or whether it only gives rise to an inference of negligence sufficient for presentation to the jury.'
There is a split of authority on whether or not a rear-end collision, coupled with circumstances under which it occurs, gives rise to an inference or a presumption of negligence. The following authorities hold that a presumption arises and that the burden of going forward with the evidence is on the person who ran into the preceding car from the rear: Douglas v. Silvia, 1935, 55 R.I. 260, 180 A. 359; Muhleisen v. Eberhardt, La.App.1945, 21 So.2d 235; Crochet v. A. & P. Truck Lines, La.App.1951, 52 So.2d 265; and Nielsen v. Pyles, 1944, 322 Ill.App. 574, 54 N.E.2d 753.
The Rhode Island court, in the case of Douglas v. Silvia, supra, said:
In the case of Muhleisen v. Eberhardt, supra, it was said (21 So.2d 236):
'It will be seen from the statement of the pleadings in the case that the main question presented to us for determination is one of fact and, since the defendant admits that his truck ran into the rear of the Muhleisen car in broad daylight while it was stopped upon the roadway, the burden of proof was upon him to show that his driver was free from fault. * * *'
The case of Harvey v. Borg, 1934, 218 Iowa 1228, 257 N.W. 190, 193, indicates the logic of those cases which hold that only an inference of neglect arises from the fact that a rear-end collision occurred and, therefore, it becomes a matter for the jury.
In Harvey v. Borg, supra, the Supreme Court of Iowa said:
See also Wright v. Clausen, 253 Ky. 498, 69 S.W.2d 1062, 104 A.L.R. 480, and Meek v. Allen, 1948, 162 Pa.Super. 495, 58 A.2d 370.
In the case of Townsend Sash Door & Lumber Company v. Silas, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 158, 160, which involved the so-called 'range of vision rule', Mr. Justice Thornal, in a special concurring opinion, said:
The record shows that the sole testimony as to negligence in the case was that of the plaintiff. Afte...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dornton v. Darby
...136 So.2d 376; Cooper v. Yellow Cab Co., Fla.App., 106 So.2d 436; Sheddan v. Yellow Cab Co., Fla.App., 105 So.2d 388; McNulty v. Cusack, Fla.App., 104 So.2d 785. It is a presumption that arises rather than a mere inference. It shifts the burden of going forward to the defendant. The Florida......
-
Miller v. James, 6330
...43; Wise v. Jacksonville Gas Corp., Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 704; ReMark Chemical Co. v. Ross, Fla.App.1958,101 So.2d 163; McNulty v. Cusack, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 785; St. Joe Paper Co. v. Gulf Mosquito Control Dist., Fla.App.1961, 125 So.2d 895; Owca v. Zemzicki, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 8......
-
Stephens v. Dichtenmueller, 1101
...involved in the accident was in fact cutting in on the motorcycle at the time the accident occurred.' In the case of McNulty v. Cusak, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 785, the court held that where a collision occurs between a vehicle lawfully stopped at a traffic light and a vehicle approaching fr......
-
Gulle v. Boggs
...divergent conclusions of law on substantially similar controlling facts. Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, Fla., 117 So.2d 731. In McNulty v. Cusack, 104 So.2d 785, the Court of Appeal, Second District, held that where a defendant runs into the rear of a plaintiff's automobile while the plaintif......