## Facts

- Annie B. Cusack’s car was stopped at a traffic signal at an intersection.
- F. Jerome McNulty’s vehicle struck Cusack’s car from the rear.
- Cusack sued McNulty for negligence arising from the rear-end collision.
- At trial, the evidence on liability consisted essentially of Cusack’s account that she was stopped when hit.
- McNulty offered no evidence explaining the collision or showing due care.
- The trial court directed a verdict for Cusack on liability and submitted only damages to the jury.
- The jury awarded Cusack $16,000 in damages.

## Issues

1. Whether proof of a rear-end collision involving a stopped lead vehicle, without any exculpatory explanation from the rear driver, creates a presumption or prima facie case of negligence sufficient to support a directed verdict on liability.
2. Whether the $16,000 damages award was so excessive that it required appellate relief.
3. Whether the appeal should be procedurally disposed of due to the appellant’s failure to file an appendix with the brief.

## Decision

- The court denied the appellee’s motions to strike the brief, dismiss the appeal, or summarily affirm based on the missing appendix, and reached the merits.
- The court affirmed the directed verdict for Cusack on liability.
- The court held that proof of an unexplained rear-end collision with a stationary lead vehicle made a prima facie case of negligence against the rear driver and shifted the duty to produce evidence of due care to the defendant.
- The court affirmed the $16,000 verdict, concluding it was not excessive under the governing standard of review.

## Legal Principles

- Proof that a defendant’s vehicle struck a plaintiff’s vehicle from the rear under circumstances consistent with the plaintiff’s due care establishes a prima facie case (presumption) of negligence against the rear driver.
- Once the prima facie case is established, the rear driver bears the burden of going forward with evidence of due care or a non-negligent explanation; absent such evidence, liability need not be submitted to the jury.
- The rear-end presumption is not absolute liability; if the defendant produces evidence of an exculpatory circumstance, negligence becomes a jury question.
- A damages verdict will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is so excessive as to indicate improper influences such as passion or prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a directed verdict on liability and a $16,000 damages award, holding that an unexplained rear-end collision with a stopped lead vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence that shifts to the rear driver the duty to present evidence of due care.


McNulty v. Cusack, 104 So. 2d 785 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1958)