Ortega v. All Dade Fences Inc.
In a rear-end collision case, the Third DCA affirmed summary judgment for the lead driver and vehicle owner because the plaintiffs failed to rebut the rear-driver presumption of negligence — the record was uncontroverted that the lead driver made no abrupt, arbitrary, and unexpected stop. On cross-appeal, the court reversed the denial of section 768.79 fees, holding that neither the statute nor rule 1.442 requires a proposal for settlement to state that judgment will be entered or to specify a payment timeframe.
Key facts
- Rear-end collision case where plaintiff sued the lead driver and vehicle owner for damages; trial court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- Plaintiffs failed to present affirmative evidence that the lead driver made an abrupt, arbitrary, and unexpected stop; the record was uncontroverted on this point.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The fee holding is the practical takeaway: the Third DCA reinforces SDG Dadeland by rejecting two commonly asserted grounds for striking proposals for settlement — absence of a payment deadline and absence of 'judgment… — 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.