Timothy Kazee, Esq. (Deland, FL) (Automobile Liability) obtained a Final Summary Judgment in a negligence action pending in Polk County Circuit Court. In February 2022, the Plaintiff was driving westbound on Interstate 4 through a construction zone. The vehicle ahead of the Plaintiff slowed and stopped, and then Plaintiff slowed her vehicle and came to a controlled stop behind that lead vehicle. A third vehicle failed to stop and struck Plaintiff’s vehicle from behind. According to the Plaintiff, the chain reaction was caused by a construction barrel that flew into the path of the vehicle ahead of her. The Plaintiff alleged that ACME Barricades was negligent in causing the accident. ACME Barricades denied ownership and any negligent possession, control, or maintenance of the alleged barrel; the Defense further alleged that the third vehicle was the sole and proximate cause of the accident or, alternatively, that the negligence of the third vehicle was a superseding intervening cause of Plaintiff’s alleged damages.
During the hearing on ACME Barricade’s Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff argued that, although she had no firsthand recollection as to barrel markings, a police officer on the scene reported the barrel as belonging to ACME Barricades. Although the Plaintiff did not see the barrel allegedly enter her lane of travel, the Plaintiff cited testimony of a witness that the barrel entered the lane causing the traffic to stop. On the other hand, ACME Barricades showed through testimony of its corporate representative that it had no record of any of its barrels being in or through the subject area at the time of the incident. ACME Barricades argued that, even if it were the barrel owner, there was no maintenance of traffic plan or evidence that it was responsible for placing or maintaining the barrel that would tie the alleged negligence to mere barrel ownership. ACME Barricades argued that the police officer’s testimony was inadmissible on the barrel belonging to ACME Barricades because the testimony was based solely upon the police report rather than independent recollection. Lastly, ACME Barricades argued that Plaintiff’s theory of liability relied solely on impermissible stacking of inferences as to ownership, possession, control, negligent maintenance, or that the barrel caused the third vehicle’s independent negligence.
In granting Defendant ACME Barricade’s Summary Judgment motion, the Court found that the Plaintiff failed to provide evidence relating the vehicle collision to any negligence on the part of ACME Barricades. The Court agreed with ACME Barricades that surviving Summary Judgment would require an impermissible stacking of inferences and that there was insufficient evidence upon which to make a reasonable inference against the Defense. The Defense has a claim to recover its litigation costs.