Case Name: John GIBSON, Appellant, v. AVIS RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, INC., and Frank Arata, Jr., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1978-08-22
Citations: 362 So. 2d 960
Docket Number: No. 77-1150
Parties: John GIBSON, Appellant, v. AVIS RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, INC., and Frank Arata, Jr., Appellees.
Judges: Before HENDRY, J., GOMEZ, HELIO, Associate Judge, and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 362
Pages: 960–962

Head Matter:
John GIBSON, Appellant, v. AVIS RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, INC., and Frank Arata, Jr., Appellees.
No. 77-1150.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 22, 1978.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1978.
Richard Baron, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Dubé, Richard M. Gale, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, J., GOMEZ, HELIO, Associate Judge, and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

Opinion:
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant/plaintiff appeals from a directed verdict rendered in favor of appel-lees/defendants in an action for personal injuries stemming from an automobile accident. We affirm.
Appellee stopped his automobile in a traffic lane on Interstate 95 in Dade County. There was testimony to the effect that ap-pellee was intoxicated at the time. A second vehicle driven by a Mr. Curtis stopped short behind appellee, avoiding contact with appellee's vehicle. Curtis alighted from his auto and began directing traffic around the two vehicles. Shortly thereafter, appellant approached the scene and, viewing the situation, applied his brakes. Appellant's auto came to a halt short of the Curtis vehicle. Almost simultaneously, a fourth vehicle driven by co-defendant McNealy struck appellant's auto, pushing it into the Curtis vehicle. Appellant's vehicle was severely damaged (totaled) and he sustained injuries permanent in nature.
Subsequent to the filing of a personal injury lawsuit against appellee, McNealy and their respective insurers, the case proceeded to jury trial. At the close of appellant's case, both defendants and their insurers moved for a directed verdict. Appel-lees' motion was granted while McNealy and his insured's motion was denied. The trial judge based the directed verdict upon the theory that the fourth car driven by McNealy represented an efficient intervening cause insulating the negligent appellee from liability. We agree with the trial judge's reasoning.
At trial, co-defendant McNealy testified that he saw the stopped vehicles approximately two hundred yards ahead. Though the nighttime conditions were not ideal for visibility, it is apparent that had McNealy been driving cautiously, maintaining the proper distance between his vehicle and appellant's vehicle and watching the road ahead, no accident would have occurred. McNealy had more than enough time to avoid an accident (as other automobiles had done) by changing lanes and his negligence on the road amounted to an efficient intervening cause relieving appellees of liability. Nuno v. Balz, 255 So.2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Pass v. Friedman, 140 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); compare Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Garland, 269 So.2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972), wherein the original tortfeasor's act actually produced the second act of negligence.
Accordingly, the final judgment entered in accordance with the directed verdict is affirmed.
Affirmed.