United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

Cassandra Gautier, Plaintiff,

v. 

Martin Monta, and others, 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 22-23296-Civ-Scola 

Order on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

 This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment on claims 1, 2, and 3 of the complaint. (Mot., ECF No. 47.) The Plaintiff 

filed a response (ECF No. 49), and the Defendants replied. (ECF No. 52.) After 

careful consideration of the briefing, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, 

the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 

47.) 

1. Background 

On May 29, 2021, Defendant Martin1 was driving an auto transport truck 

in a center lane of a Florida highway when the Plaintiff, whose vehicle was ahead 

of the Defendant’s, slowed down significantly in order to change lanes to the 

right. (Defs.’ Stmt. of Mat. Facts (“SMF”), ECF No. 46 ¶¶ 5-9; Pl.’s SMF, ECF No. 

48 ¶¶ 5-9.) Defendant Martin slowed down as well and moved to the left, 

apparently to avoid impact, but collided with the Plaintiff’s vehicle nonetheless. 

(Defs.’ SMF, ECF No. 46 ¶¶ 10, 12; Pl.’s SMF, ECF No. 48 ¶¶ 10, 12.) These 

events were caught on the dash cam in Defendant Martin’s vehicle. (See Defs.’ 

SMF, Ex. 2, ECF No. 46-2; Pl.’s SMF, Ex. 1, ECF No. 48-1.) 

The Plaintiff filed this action, alleging negligence against Martin (count 1), 

vicarious liability and respondeat superior against the truck’s owner, Royal Truck 

Leasing, LLC (counts 2 and 3), and negligence against Martin’s employer, Hansen 

& Adkins Auto Transport, Inc. (count 4). (Compl., ECF No. 1-2.) 

2. Legal Standard 

Summary judgment is proper if, following discovery, the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and admissions on file show 

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 

1 The Defendants note that although the Plaintiff named “Martin D. Monta” in the complaint, the 

Defendant’s correct name is “Darrin Monta Martin.” The Court encourages the parties to move to 

amend the case caption to make this correction and avoid any future confusion.

Case 1:22-cv-23296-RNS Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 1 of 4
322 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. “An issue of fact is ‘material’ if, under the 

applicable substantive law, it might affect the outcome of the case.” Hickson Corp. 

v. N. Crossarm Co., 357 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (11th Cir. 2004). “An issue of fact is 

‘genuine’ if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find 

for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 1260. All the evidence and factual inferences 

reasonably drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to 

the nonmoving party. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970); 

Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250, 1280 (11th Cir. 2004). 

Once a party properly makes a summary judgment motion by 

demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving 

party must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that 

there is a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. The 

nonmovant’s evidence must be significantly probative to support the claims. See

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The Court will not 

weigh the evidence or make findings of fact. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249; 

Morrison v. Amway Corp., 323 F.3d 920, 924 (11th Cir. 2003). Rather, the Court’s 

role is limited to deciding whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a 

reasonable juror could find for the nonmoving party. Id. “If more than one 

inference could be construed from the facts by a reasonable fact finder, and that 

inference introduces a genuine issue of material fact, then the district court 

should not grant summary judgment.” Bannum, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 

901 F.2d 989, 996 (11th Cir. 1990). 

3. Analysis 

The Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the negligence claim 

against Defendant Martin (count 1) and the claims against Defendant Royal 

Truck Leasing, LLC (counts 2 and 3). (Mot., ECF No. 47.) The Defendants do not 

make submissions regarding summary judgment with respect to count 4, but 

their motion implies that count 4 should be dismissed for the same reasons as 

count 1. (See generally id.) With respect to counts 2 and 3, the Defendants assert 

that the Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 30106) precludes vicarious liability for 

certain vehicle owner/lessors, including Royal Truck Leasing, LLC. (Mot., ECF No. 

47 at 6-7.) The Plaintiff agrees. (Pl.’s Resp., ECF No. 49 at 1.) The Court therefore 

grants summary judgment with respect to the claims against Defendant Royal 

Truck Leasing, LLC (counts 2 and 3). 

 The parties’ disagreements regarding Defendant Martin’s liability for 

negligence are more contentious. The Defendants argue in the summary 

judgment motion that Defendant Martin cannot be liable because the Plaintiff’s 

injuries “are wholly the fault and result of Plaintiff’s own actions in unsafely 

slowing down in the middle of a busy highway[,] making a collision inevitable 

Case 1:22-cv-23296-RNS Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 2 of 4
. . . .” (Mot., ECF No. 47 at 2.) The Defendants cite to the dash cam footage, 

Defendant Martin’s testimony, an expert report, and the traffic citation that the 

Plaintiff received following the accident in arguing that summary judgment is 

appropriate. (Id. at 3.) The Plaintiff responds that genuine disputes as to material 

facts remain, including Defendant Martin’s “speed, timing, maneuvers, [] ability to 

avoid the collision, and ultimately the act of rearending the Plaintiff’s vehicle.”

(Pl.’s Resp., ECF No. 49 at 4.) The Court agrees with the Plaintiff that the record 

fails to establish that every reasonable juror would absolve Defendant Martin of 

fault for the accident. 

Negligence claims are highly fact-specific, which makes them poor 

candidates for summary judgment. See Suarez v. Panera, LLC, No. 10-20854-CIV, 

2011 WL 13220164 *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2011) (Jordan, J.) (citing Petruska v. 

Smartparks-Silver Springs, Inc., 914 So. 2d 502, 505 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005).

Questions about the cause of an accident “generally must be resolved by the trier 

of fact based on all the facts and circumstances.” See Sawyer v. Allied Int’l 

Holdings, Inc., 707 So. 2d 761, 763 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (collecting cases).

Further, the Defendants do not dispute that comparative negligence governs in 

this case. “Because the inquiry under comparative negligence concerns the 

respective liability of the parties, unresolved facts as to the negligence of one 

party preclude entry of judgment as a matter of law.” Narvaez v. Circle K Stores, 

Inc., No. 8:14-CV-1549-T-TBM, 2015 WL 12762061, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 

2015) (citing Holderbaum v. Carnival Corp., No. 13–24216–CIV, 2015 WL 728362, 

at *12 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2015) (Lenard, J.)). In the present context, this means

that the undisputed evidence would need to show that the Defendant could not 

have prevented the accident by the exercise of due care in order to prevail at 

summary judgment. See Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431, 438 (Fla. 1973). 

The Defendants cannot meet this high bar. When viewing the record in the 

light most favorable to the Plaintiff, a reasonable juror could easily agree with the 

Plaintiff that she was not 100% at fault based on her version of the facts,

including based on Defendant Martin’s actions in the moments leading up to the 

accident. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant Martin was driving above the speed 

limit and unreasonably fast for operating a truck carrying 30,000-32,000 pounds, 

failed to slow down despite seeing that the Plaintiff’s vehicle had slowed, and 

could have switched lanes in order to prevent the collision. (See Resp., ECF No. 

49 at 5; Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 22, 24, 25.) The facts in the record would permit a 

reasonable juror to make these conclusions.

In addition to the dash cam footage and witness testimony, the Defendants

raise their expert’s report and the Plaintiff’s traffic citation as proof that no 

reasonable juror could find Defendant Martin even partially negligent. (Mot., ECF 

No. 47 at 3, 5, 6.) However, the Court need not accept the expert’s opinion that 

“the collision was inevitable due to the constraints placed on Mr. Martin by 

Case 1:22-cv-23296-RNS Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 3 of 4
Plaintiffs [sic] actions.” (Mot., ECF No. 47 at 5.) That opinion, as the Plaintiff 

notes, can be credited or rejected by the jury, but it is not for the Court to weigh 

at this stage. (Pl.’s Resp., ECF No. 49 at 6.) Similarly, even if the citation the 

Plaintiff received after the incident is admissible at trial, it is merely evidence that 

the jury can weigh rather than conclusive proof of the Plaintiff’s fault. See Del 

Campo-Aguila v. Martins, No. 22-21146-CIV, 2023 WL 5015396, at *3 (S.D. Fla. 

Aug. 7, 2023) (Williams, J.) (citing Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp., 693 So. 2d 934, 

937 (Fla. 1996)). Thus, disputes over material facts remain that are best resolved 

by a jury. 

The above analysis also determines whether summary judgment is 

appropriate with respect to count 4, negligence against Defendant Martin’s 

employer, Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport, Inc. An employer can be vicariously 

liable for the acts of its employee performed within the course of their 

employment. Dieas v. Assoc. Loan Co., 99 So. 2d 279, 281 (Fla. 1957). Because 

there is a genuine dispute as to material facts with respect to Defendant Martin’s 

negligence, there is equally a dispute regarding the vicarious liability of Hansen & 

Adkins Auto Transport, Inc. Summary judgment is therefore inappropriate.

The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to negligence, 

counts 1 and 4 against Defendants Martin and Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport, 

Inc., is therefore denied. 

4. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Court grants the motion for summary 

judgment with respect to claims 2 and 3 and denies the motion with respect to 

counts 1 and 4. (ECF No. 47.)

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on September 22, 2023.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-23296-RNS Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 4 of 4