Goddard v. J.S.J. Unlimited, LLC
In a bicycle-versus-truck negligence case, the jury found the driver not negligent after the trial court refused two requested instructions premised on statutory traffic violations (section 316.130(15) due care to avoid colliding with bicyclists/pedestrians, and section 316.183(1), (4)(a) unlawful/unreduced speed). The Sixth DCA held both instructions were accurate statements of law supported by the evidence — including expert testimony that the driver could have braked in time and was traveling about 33 mph in a 30 mph zone — and reversed for a new trial, while affirming the exclusion of rebuttal evidence.
Key facts
- Bicycle rider was struck by truck driven by J.S.J. Unlimited employee; jury found driver not negligent despite trial court refusing instructions on statutory traffic violations.
- Trial court refused instructions based on Florida Statutes sections 316.130(15) (duty of care to avoid colliding with bicyclists/pedestrians) and 316.183(1), (4)(a) (unlawful/reduced speed); evidence showed driver traveling approximately 33 mph in 30 mph zone and expert testimony that driver could have braked in time.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a useful plaintiff-side tool in auto/bicycle/pedestrian negligence trials: it confirms that a modest, disputed speed differential and expert avoidance testimony are enough to compel statutory-violation… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.