Breach is not cause

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 51 NUMBER 25

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF JUNE 26, 2026

DIRECTED VERDICT ON CAUSATION REVERSED EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT ADMITTED NEGLIGENCE—CAUSATION REMAINED A JURY QUESTION

White v. Evans, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1265 (Fla. 5th DCA June 19, 2026):

The plaintiff filed a negligence action arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Before trial, the defendant admitted that her negligence caused the collision.

Negligence is not “causation,” and the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff a directed a on causation (rarely an appropriate issue for DV).

As such, the court reversed the final judgment and remanded for a new trial.

PLAINTIFF SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED FLORIDA LONG-ARM JURISDICTION WHERE DEFENDANT’S ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY INTERNET POSTINGS WERE ACCESSED IN FLORIDA—MINIMUM CONTACTS NOT RAISED—DISMISSAL REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Defreest v. Pridemore, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1265 (Fla. 5th DCA June 19, 2026):

The plaintiff, a Florida resident, filed a defamation action against the defendant, a nonresident, alleging that the defendant published defamatory statements about him on the internet. According to the complaint, those statements were viewed by at least one third party located in Florida.

The court explained that Florida’s long-arm statute permits jurisdiction over a nonresident who commits a tortious act within Florida. In defamation cases involving internet publications, that requirement may be satisfied where defamatory statements posted online are accessed by third parties within Florida.

The plaintiff specifically alleged that he was a Florida resident, that the defendant published defamatory statements on a website, and that those statements were actually accessed in Florida by another person. Those allegations were sufficient to establish jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute, and the defendant filed nothing sword to rebut them.

The appellate court declined to consider whether the defendant possessed sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy constitutional due process requirements because that issue had not been raised or litigated before the trial court. The court simply reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.