Florida Courts Addres Rear-End Presumption in Auto Accidents

The judicially created rear-end presumption in vehicle collision cases came before the Florida First District Court of Appeal in a November 2021 opinion.  In Crime v. Looney, the trial court (Circuit Court in Duval County) held the rear-end presumption in vehicle collision cases defeated the Defendant’s claim of comparative fault. Crime v. Looney, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2548a (Fla. 1st DCA November 24, 2021).  The First DCA held the trial court erred in its interpretation of the rear-end presumption. Id. In Looney, the Defendant presented evidence that he was not the sole cause of the accident.  As such, the First DCA held the rear-end presumption should have vanished and lost its legal effect. Id

In Birge v. Charron, the Florida Supreme Court addressed a similar issue with the judicially created rear-end presumption. Birge v. Charron, 107 So. 3d 350, 359 (Fla. 2012).  The Court held that the rear-end presumption is an evidentiary tool not an alternate means of tort recovery in derogation of Florida's well-established system of recovery based on comparative negligence. Id. at 361. In Looney, the First DCA adopted the reasoning from Birge, to wit: where evidence is produced from which a jury could conclude that the front driver in a rear-end collision was negligent and comparatively at fault in bringing about the collision, the presumption is rebutted and vanishes. Crime v. Looney, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2548a (Fla. 1st DCA November 24, 2021)

The decision in Looney reinforced that Defendants in rear-end collisions can rebut the judicially created rear-end presumption.  Therefore, addressing issues of comparative negligence early in discovery is critical to rebutting the presumption of negligence in a rear-end collision.  This could put the defendant in a more favorable position regarding liability.  The ability to contest liability will lead to a stronger position during settlement negotiations.  Significantly, the party originally entitled to the presumption now has to prove their case in chief, which would be more costly and time consuming.