and the jury entered her for the defendant the questions presented for review are whether the trial court error in refusing to direct findings that the defendant was negligent as a matter of law and also for the plaintiff could not be contributory controverted evidence presented at trial requires a finding that the defendant was negligent as a matter of law when he admitted he was looking in the rearview mirror before rear ending in the plaintiff that he misjudged the speed and distance between his car and the plaintiff's car because he was distracted by the traffic in the other lane and that even though he noticed the plaintiff's car and her tail lights he could not stop in time because he was approaching her car too quickly that was presented to the jury allowed that the plaintiff if the defendant was negligent i if the plaintiff was not contributory negligence in excess of fifty percent then my client was entitled to some portion of damages for li intersection at the time he impacted her and that it is true as today the defendant had brought in his brief and my client did testify that she was within forty five car lengths of the intersection it was forty five cars in front of her with a reasonable distance in between their cars she did not give an estimate of how many feet that would have been think a reasonable interpretation is when the defendant states it's more than two hundred feet and she gives a forty five car estimate with reasonable distance in used her turn signal in this situation that it would have deterred the error distracted to defend it in any way would have changed his conduct he stated he saw the car he saw a light he saw her tail lights he just simply applied his brakes too late because he wasn't paying attention he was looking in his review near at the time he didn't know the flow of traffic in the lane he was it he specifically testified he knew the traffic the flow of the traffic then the left lane which is lane he was not right in because he was was that it was because you didn't have enough time to tell notice that because he was looking behind him at the time when you look forward regardless of my claim it had a turn signal that's the first time it's our car it's hard taillights he saw her car if  plaintiff's car until the last minute because he was distracted by confusion of traffic and another lane and looking somewhere else when he should have been looking forward to that funny also in that case the minute he saw the taillights that he didn't see plaintiff's turn was presented at trial was that the defendant and made it that the plaintiff was at least two hundred feet away from the intersection at the time he had struck her and that this statute requires that you be within  hundred one hundred feet if you're within a residential in two hundred feet if you're within a business district and since the defendant testified it and made it that she was at least two hundred feet away from the intersection the evidence was was she did not give an estimate to it the only estimation that was ever given was by the defendant and he said it she was at least two hundred feet away and the defendant also the plaintiff also stated that she didn't have her turn signal on at this time because she was not required to she was not going to turn up at that time and the defendant also it may be during his testimony that the plaintiff was not did not suddenly stop that defend it or the plaintiff was not trying to move into the right turn better what i've seen from the record in the only thing that i can see that the testimony is that michael my client had testified that she was within four to five car lengths there was no testimony as to was this a business district was it residential there wasn't any sound except actually right over there i believe there are cell neighborhoods as that are on the left side of that i don't know what there was no avenue or were yes there yes it was but there was nothing else entered into evidence as to his own meaning of what that particular street was where he was veterans parkway and i seventy two intersection going towards jacksonville  that is not my contention i was just clearly stating that there was nothing in the record other than where it occurred that and that the statute defines one hundred feet for residential and two hundred for a business district but would  the speed limit at that time i believe it was fifty five miles per hour but there wasn't any issue as to speeding or sudden stopping or anything brought up by the defendant the defendant specifically stated in his testimony are you  alleging that the plaintiff did anything other than not have her right turn signal on any misconduct by the plaintiff other than the right turn signal and he said your collapse that's the only thing he was alleging that caused him to strike her was that she did not ever turn and which was the fifth district case the defendant was driving behind a plane after that down the highway and she began to slow down because she was approaching a disabled car so it's very similar to the fact that you presented to me the similar to this situation here the court found that yes in that circumstance the defendant was still guilty of was still contrary negligent as a matter of law based on the fact that the plaintiff had to stop on a highway and he just simply was approaching her too quickly and he never enough time to stop and avoid the accident and in that case he it was the defendant was issued a track citation for failure to reduce the speed to avoid an accident and he pled guilty and that under this abuse of discretion the riggin quite reversed a judgment only when no reasonable person could take the view adopted by the lower court and it is our contention that no reasonable person would have found that my client was contributory negligence in excess of fifty percent or that the defendant was not negligent as a matter of law based on the facts that were presented at trial and were relying on that based on were cases that were cited and the facts that were presented at trial is very simple that the defendant simply was not paying attention and he had stated as such well late and that's when you were entered her car and it was due to the fact he was looking in his rearview mirror as well as being only cognizant of what the left hand traffic was and not with the right nothing that has to do with my client in this circumstance this case they make a lot of what they consider to be an admission by my client but really in trial he was asked if he recalled he said i don't recall how far i was away where the accident occurred she said well in your deposition if you say it was two hundred feet he says i think so so we don't have a real definitive testimony from him but i would ask this for this who's admission if you call it that if you want to use or terminology whose are we supposed to look at is the hearse and what it when she says i'm forty five cars plus a reasonable amount space in between if that's over two hundred feet those are really big cars i think the jury was entitled to take a look at that and say which of these words r s fifty feet and leaves her lip that's not a reasonable minefield i but the question is you took your foot off the brake and started moving forward with the flow of traffic what is negligent about that what that does is that well two things first of all my answer was limited to my answer was giv recall any evidence along those lines she say we sooner or later it was soon thereafter if i recall she says a process fight hagar sixty three the record question you took your foot place on the right side of the road and he says he misjudged the distance you admitted he was distracted i don't believe he said he admitted he was distracted i think that's your conclusion and i would draw of course attention to his testimony which i think addresses that  on page twenty three the other traffickers he says mr bases i had seen her and started accelerating and had time to react i just didn't perceive it first from that distance or those behind her that i was going faster than her speed was and so then after i realized how quick i was catching her that i applied my brightest at that time it was too late i could not avoid what that tells me i think but that told various that had he seen something flashing or even a brake light or popping a break dark outside you couldn't see around should you see her and i don't know that's your question perhaps for the jury but this gentleman in this position just because an accident you know making sure he's claiming that he looks up was he being reasonable at that time based on what he saw and i think that's a question the jury needed to ask and i don't think that the answer is automatically yes in fact he was unable to say i don't understand it was totally understand and so are five cars reasonable distance between them you're cloying curvy your deposition made a mission it was probably at least two hundred feet i guess in testimony his client comms from her testimony of where she was in relationship to the intersection and the fact she's more likely than not yes i think that that's it that's the evidence and that was the conclusion we argue raise it because i was i did not want i think the court appreciates this but i just did not want the perception that the ticket made as a matter of what we did there is a factor to be sitting here stand and here's the thing too i guess if i was thinking about this for preparation liberal but more open position with respect to when you have these types of cases this is a question for the jury and we're going to stand by that when you look at these other cases they're viewed in more of the crystal lands of a defended in an auto accident  fifteen to twenty seconds before she had released the brake because she was a red light and had just turned green and she had taken her foot off the great off the brake and began creeping forward for just a few seconds it was not  a situation where they were going fifty five miles an hour i think as you had said just stagnant and she had suddenly stopped or there was any issue with that it was simply she was stopped at a red light cars it turned green there were forty five cars ahead of her everyone over three thousand and the loss of wages and that she had considerable pain and suffering since that time this happened in two thousand and four and she there was testimony by miss frost as well as her boyfriend  husband that she has suffered significantly from that time and she's for strain from doing many of the activities that she had previously enjoyed and to answer another question was that the defendant did not refute any of the medical testimony or yes your honor i was absolutely surprised by the jury's verdict based on the overwhelming evidence that the defendant was negligent and that my client regardless of a turn signal it would not make change defendants conduct and i believe it's important to no that the cases that were cited by the defendant in this case specifically the abrams case that is being referred to that was this court made two significant distinctions in the abrams case first of all that was a motion for summary judgment and the court specifically stated their reliance on many of the cases that i had cited and mine was not it is not relevant to that situation abrams because it was a summary judgment standard sheep and this it goes back to defendants i mean as well that it was around then as to because this was a general perfect and so the court doesn't really have anything to go off of this there were two cases that i've cited in my panky and pickaxe theory erwin were the court was presented with just the same situation here a general verdict for the defense there were no special iraq authorities and it was a situation where the defendant rear ended a plaintiff alleged that there was  contributory negligence based on the lack of a turn signal and in those cases unlike the case here those cases actually alleged third party intervention or a sudden stalking or bad weather that's another important thing to know many of pieces i cited dealt with there any intervention bad weather or sudden stocking and that the court still on top of that found the defendant was still negligence matter of law and that it did not matter whether or not the plaintiff had used her right turn signal because as the court stated in sight he the player has no duty to get out of depends defendant's pass so that he can drive ahead without looking as he without looking afford that's the situation that we have here justice we have a situation where the defendant is simply saying well she should have put on her turn signal the pads then maybe i would have not given up this feed that i was going off and that's not the situation it's a situation that the defendant that the player has a duty to go with the flow of traffic just like the defendant had that seemed to only move in the flow of traffic my client was simply moving at the flow of traffic the cars front row and that is something that th defendant testified that there were four to five cars in front of her at the time of the accident the plaintiff testified there were four to five hours in front of her at the time of accident it was the defendant that testified that he had no idea at that point how many cars were ahead of the pla because he was distracted by looking at the left lanes flow of traffic and so in it this circumstance and under the overwhelming evidence and this case is cited by the  well as the case is another case that was cited by the defendant that is is can make a distinction is t