Moreno v. Salem
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2008 RAMSES D. MORENO and ISABEL MORENO, Appellants, v. GABY J. SALEM, Appellee. No. 4D07-4356 October 29, 2008 STONE, J. The plaintiffs (Morenos), claiming automobile negligence, appeal a defense judgment entered after granting the defendant s (Salem s) motion for directed verdict. We reverse. The facts are essentially undisputed. Both vehicles were traveling south on Interstate 75 on a rainy and windy afternoon. Morenos were traveling at a normal speed in their lane when Salem s car hit the right side of their vehicle, causing their car to spin and the two vehicles to collide again. Salem testified rain coming down except that it was the same speed as that the weather conditions were terrible, with the in sheets. He does not know his speed at the time, below the seventy mile per hour speed limit and was the surrounding heavy traffic. Salem decided to move from the left-most to the right-most lane in order to get away from traffic. As he entered the second lane, and before reaching the third lane, his car began to fishtail and to slide on the wet road into Morenos vehicle. Salem asserts that prior to losing control, he hit some potholes obscured by the rain, stating: I must have gone through pot holes. The car, the rear of the car swung out. I fishtailed. And the rear starts coming out to the right of me. So I immediately turned slightly to the right to keep the car going straight ¦And I turned the wheel. And the car started going straight, but at a n angle but because the road is wet and the wind was so much from the right, I started sliding down ever so slightly down into the next lane. And eventually unfortunately I ended up getting into the left-most lanes where the SUV was there. And I tapped into them. Salem stated that he assumed that Morenos vehicle was going straight in its lane, adding, I never saw the SUV. The trial court reserved ruling on the motion for directed verdict after Morenos case and granted the motion when the defense rested, holding that there was no proof of Salem s negligence. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to state a prima facie case of negligence and that it was error not to submit the issue to the jury. Motorists have a duty to use reasonable care on the roadways to avoid accidents. Williams v. Davis, 974 So. 2d 1052, 1063 (Fla. 2007) (citing Bellere v. Madsen, 114 So. 2d 619, 621 (Fla. 1959) (stating that motorist has a duty to drive with reasonable care commensurate with the road and surroundings); Nelson v. Ziegler, 89 So. 2d 780, 783 (Fla. 1956) (stating that a driver has a duty to exercise reasonable care while driving on a public roadway)). Whether a defendant has exercised reasonable care under the circumstances is generally for the jury to decide. L.A. Fitness Int l, LLC v. Mayer, 980 So. 2d 550, 556-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Whitt v. Silverman, 788 So. 2d 210, 220 (Fla. 2001)). Although not argued, we note that section 316.089, Florida Statutes, provides: Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, the following rules, in addition to all others consistent herewith, shall apply: (1) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made safely. [emphasis added] We deem Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Sosa, 907 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2005), anagolous. Sosa was a wrongful death action brought by the personal representative of a passenger riding in a rental car. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff/passenger, and the rental car company appealed. The Sosa court s comments and recitation of facts are, similarly, applicable here: I. DIRECTED VERDICT 2 Enterprise first contends that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for Enterprise on the issue of liability. We disagree. Motions for directed verdict should be cautiously affirmed only when it can be said that after viewing the evidence and testimony in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party that a jury could not reasonably differ as to the existence of a material fact or material inference and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Carrousel Intern. Corp. v. Auction Co. of America, Inc., 674 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Furthermore, in testing the motion, the movant must admit to all of the facts in the evidence a n d must further admit to every reasonable inference favorable to the non-moving party. See Tiny s Liquors, Inc. v. Davis, 353 So. 2d 168, 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In the instant case, the facts presented, with all inferences drawn in favor of the plaintiff, allow for a finding of negligence. The testimony indicates that on the day of the accident, it was raining. Enterprise s vehicle began to fishtail, a n d th e driver did not have the vehicle under control. The vehicle crossed the center line and collided with a n oncoming vehicle, causing Roman s death. These established facts, along with all the inferences drawn in favor of the plaintiff, the party moved against, are sufficient for a finding of negligence. In addition, even without the testimony of an eyewitness to an event, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a jury finding as to a particular fact. See Majeske v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, 117 So. 2d 531, 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Enterprise s motion for directed verdict on liability and in allowing the issue of negligence to go to the jury. Id. at 1241. Here also the issue was for the jury. We remand for a new trial. WARNER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur. 3 * * * Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Eli Breger, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE05005725(14). Bernardo Roman III of Law Offices of Bernardo Roman III, Miami, for appellants. Warren B. Kwavnick of Cooney, Mattson, Lance, Blackburn, Richards & O'Connor, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
