Personal injury attorneys in Fort Lauderdale, Florida will tell you that in determining whether imposition of civil liability for damages caused by a motor vehicle accident is warranted, reference must be made to the law of the road, which is embraced in statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and which is promulgated for the protection of life and property. Indeed, the law of the road comprises an essential part of the common knowledge of every traveler, and one who goes on the highway and negligently or otherwise fails to observe it does so at his own peril. While the statutory regulations governing the operation of motor vehicles upon public roads do not expressly enlarge common-law liability, owners are bound to observe the statutory regulations and assume liability commensurate with the dangers to which they or their agents subject others to in using automobiles on the public highway.
Personal injury lawyers in Fort Lauderdale often argue that violations of state statutes governing motor vehicles are evidence of negligence. The violation of a statute or municipal ordinance governing the operation of motor vehicles is not negligence per se but constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence. Thus, where a traffic law prohibits specific conduct likely to cause harm to others and the same conduct is alleged in a civil action as negligent conduct causing injury to another, the traffic law becomes a minimum standard of care as to that conduct, and a violation of the traffic law constitutes some evidence of negligence.
Because the violation of a traffic law or regulation only constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence, Personal injury lawyers in Fort Lauderdale caution, however that it is not conclusive on the issue of liability. Thus, the prima facie evidence of negligence arising from violation of a traffic law or regulation may be overcome by proof of surrounding circumstances and conditions that eliminate the character of negligence from the occurrence in question. For this reason, when it is shown that a traffic law has been violated, it is ordinarily for the jury to determine, from all of the facts and circumstances, whether or not the prima facie evidence of negligence is overcome by other evidence of existing facts and circumstances. Thus, in an action arising out of a motor vehicle/pedestrian accident, it was not error for the jury to find for the defendant, even though the defendant admitted that he was exceeding the speed limit by five or 10 m.p.h. at the time of the accident, where the jury could have found that the negligence of another defendant, with whom the plaintiff had settled, was the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
In the absence of the introduction of sufficient evidence to rebut the prima facie case of negligence established by the violation, the jury has the affirmative duty to return a verdict of negligence against the violator. Thus, a defendant claiming a justifiable reason for not observing traffic rules has the duty to go forward with the evidence to show that he was not negligent.
Fort Lauderdale Personal injury lawyers practice tip: Although the fact of a violation of a statute ordinarily is not conclusive on the issue of causation and ultimate liability, the violation of a safety statute will support a directed verdict against the defendant where the evidence is clear that the plaintiff did not contribute to the injuries and that the defendant's breach of an affirmative statutory duty, such as the duty to maintain adequate safety chains on a trailer, is the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
Where there is some evidence of a violation of a traffic law, the requesting party is entitled to have the jury instructed accordingly. In instructing the jury on this matter, it is proper for the court to give a general instruction to the effect that if the jury found from the evidence that the defendant violated any of the state laws, it might consider this fact as bearing upon the showing of negligence. It is error, however, for the court to refuse to instruct on the effect of specific statutory violations on the basis that there is no evidence on which the jury can lawfully conclude that such a violation occurred, because such a finding by the court is an invasion of the province of the jury.
Fort Lauderdale Personal injury lawyers illustration: The trial court erred in failing to give a jury instruction on driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that one's normal faculties are impaired, where the father of a motorcyclist killed when he collided with a county vehicle brought a wrongful death action against the county, and although there was evidence that the truck pulled in front of the motorcyclist, a toxicologist testified that the deceased's blood-alcohol level impaired his ability to perform complex tasks such as operating a motor vehicle and a sheriff's deputy testified that he had seen the deceased pulling his motorcycle out of a ditch less than 1.5 hours before the accident. Likewise, the trial court's failure to give requested instructions concerning violations of certain Uniform Traffic Control Law sections was reversible error because it could not be presumed that the jury knew the statutory requirements or that the common sense of the jurors would dictate the appropriate behavior, and the jury was entitled to guidance on the statutory requirements and the effect that a violation of a statute would have on its deliberations.
