Rianhard v. Rice, B-240
| Decision Date | 05 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. B-240,B-240 |
| Citation | 119 So.2d 730 |
| Parties | George Z. RIANHARD, Appellant, v. Albert RICE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jenkins & Jenkins, Gainesville, for appellant.
Lazonby, Dell, Graham & Willcox, Gainesville, for appellee.
Plaintiff below, George Z. Rianhard, brings this appeal to review a summary final judgment in favor of the defendant, Albert Rice, in an action for negligence arising out of a collision between plaintiff's motorcycle and defendant's pick-up truck Defendant's proofs in support of his motion for summary judgment are to the effect that the collision occurred when his truck, being operated in a proper manner, was in the process of passing the motorcycle after having overtaken it; that the point of impact between the automobile and motorcycle was entirely on the west lane of the highway; that the road was straight, level, and clear of any other traffic; that the accident was due entirely to plaintiff's negligence in driving his motorcycle into the left (west) lane of traffic at the time defendant's truck was in that lane engaged in the act of passing; and that plaintiff acted so abruptly as not to permit the defendant an opportunity to avoid the collision.
Plaintiff's proofs in opposition to the motion for summary judgment reflect that he was operating his motorcycle in a proper manner and traveling north in his proper lane (east) along the highway when struck from the rear by defendant's truck. Plaintiff's proofs also reflect that other than as stated, he had no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the accident; that he was at all times unaware of the presence of defendant's truck.
The order of the learned trial judge granting the motion for summary judgment states:
. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephens v. Dichtenmueller, 1101
...in favor of the lead vehicle when struck from the rear while moving and located in its proper place on the highway, Rianhard v. Rice, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 730; Busbee v. Quarrier, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 17, 21; and Shaw v. York, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d The effect of the presumption is t......
-
Pierce v. Progressive American Ins. Co.
...of negligence on the part of the overtaking vehicle. Stephens v. Dichtenmueller, 207 So.2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Rianhard v. Rice, 119 So.2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). This presumption provides a prima facie case which shifts to the defendant the burden to come forward with evidence to con......
-
Ritter v. Brengle
...of a following vehicle running into its rear raises a presumption of negligence on the part of the overtaking vehicle. In Rianhard v. Rice, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 730, it was 'In McNulty v. Cusack, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 785, and Shedden v. Yellow Cab Co. of Miami, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d......
-
Charleston National Bank v. Hennessy, 25673.
...see also Shaw v. York, 187 So.2d 397 (Fla.D.C. App.1966); Busbee v. Quarrier, 172 So. 2d 17 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1965); Rianhard v. Rice, 119 So.2d 730 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1960). Once the presumption came into existence the plaintiff had satisfied his burden of non-persuasion of the jury. The obl......