Reiver v. Paz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reiver v. Paz

802 So. 2d 413, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17077, 2001 WL 1538545

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 5, 2001

DocketNo. 3D00-2463

StatusPublished

This text of 802 So. 2d 413 (Reiver v. Paz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reiver v. Paz, 802 So. 2d 413, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17077, 2001 WL 1538545 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Adam Reiver, the defendant below in a rear-end automobile collision case, appeals from an order granting a motion for directed verdict, and following submission of the cause to the jury, entry of judgment notwithstanding that jury’s verdict. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

The jury reasonably concluded that the evidence and testimony rebutted the presumption of negligence “that attaches to the rear driver in a rear-end collision ... in cases where the lead driver sues the rear driver.” Clampitt v. D.J. Spencer Sales, 786 So.2d 570, 572 (Fla.2001). In setting aside that verdict, the court impermissibly acted as “a seventh juror with veto power.” See Edwards v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 718 So.2d 881, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citations omitted).

[414]*414Reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the jury verdict.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Adam Reiver, the defendant below in a rear-end automobile collision case, appeals from an order granting a motion for directed verdict, and following submission of the cause to the jury, entry of judgment notwithstanding that jury’s verdict. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

The jury reasonably concluded that the evidence and testimony rebutted the presumption of negligence “that attaches to the rear driver in a rear-end collision ... in cases where the lead driver sues the rear driver.” Clampitt v. D.J. Spencer Sales, 786 So.2d 570, 572 (Fla.2001). In setting aside that verdict, the court impermissibly acted as “a seventh juror with veto power.” See Edwards v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 718 So.2d 881, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citations omitted).

[414]*414Reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the jury verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

802 So. 2d 413, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17077, 2001 WL 1538545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reiver-v-paz-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack