CHARLES P. LITTLE, APPELLANT,
v.
BANKERS NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Charles Little appealed a jury verdict in favor of his disability insurance company (Bankers National Life Insurance Company) on his claim for benefits under a disability insurance policy. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the verdict and no reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or conduct.
The appellate court held that there was substantial competent evidence to support the jury verdict, the exclusion of the FAA letter was harmless error since the contents were testified to by both the doctor and appellant, the trial court properly excluded the FAA rules and regulations as the doctor was present to testify as an expert, and the claimed prejudicial comments did not constitute fundamental error and were not properly preserved for appeal.
[1] A trial court's evidentiary error is harmless if the substance of the excluded evidence was otherwise presented to the jury through testimony.
[2] A new trial will not be granted solely for the purpose of allowing another jury to hear the case.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support the jury verdict”
The appellate court's holding that the jury verdict was sufficiently supported by evidence presented at trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Little sought recovery on a disability insurance policy. The evidence at trial included live testimony and medical reports from multiple physi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fundamental Error cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
By this appeal we are asked to review the propriety of the final judgment and subsequent order denying a motion for new trial in an action seeking recovery on a disability insurance policy. Appellant’s primary contentions are that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict, the trial court committed prejudicial error during jury trial by refusing to admit certain evidence and by making certain admonishing comments to counsel for appellant in the presence and hearing of the jury.
The evidence sought to be admitted by appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, was (a) a copy of an official letter addressed to appellant from the assistant regional flight surgeon for the Federal Aviation Administration, the subject matter of which was the medical disqualification of appellant as an air traffic control specialist, and (b) the testimony of the assistant regional flight surgeon concerning the precise rules and regulations of the FAA applicable to the matter. As to the letter written by the assistant regional flight surgeon, both the doctor and the appellant testified at length as to its contents and conclusions. Thus, the error, if any was harmless. See, § 59.041, F.S. (1967). Only material errors which could have caused injustice are reversible errors. Reeder v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 338 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The Federal Aviation Administration rules and regulations are important for setting forth the medical standards for qualification as an air traffic controller, however, the doctor was present at trial to give testimony in his official capacity regarding his evaluation of the competency of the appellant to withstand the inherent pressures involved when working as an air traffic controller. We find there was no reversible error on the part of the trial court in its ruling on these matters.
After careful review of the briefs and record as well as having heard argument of counsel, it is our considered opinion that in light of all the evidence presented by both parties at trial, which included live testimony and the admission of medical reports of several physicians, psychiatrists and psychologists, there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support the jury verdict. The court properly entered final judgment for appellee and correctly denied the motion for a new trial. The only thing that would have been accomplished by the granting of a new trial by the lower tribunal would have been to have another jury try the case, which is a manifestly insufficient reason for granting a new trial. Rosenfelder v. Huttoe, 66 So. 2d 226 (Fla.1953).
Appellant’s final point cannot be considered on appeal, the record is devoid of any proper and timely objection by counsel as to the claimed prejudicial comments made by the trial judge. Additionally, a review of the particular complained-of comments reveals that they do not constitute fundamental error as improper or unjudicial conduct; since there has been no constitutional or fundamental error the appellant cannot raise this as error for the first time in prosecution of the appeal. Love v. Hannah, 72 So. 2d 39 (Fla.1954) and American Home Assurance v. Keller Industries, Inc., 347 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
In conclusion, we find that the evidence is sufficient to support and justify the verdict, and no reversible error has been made to appear; thus, the trial court orders of final judgment and denial of the post-trial motion are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E. S.S. Lines, Inc. v. Lamy Martial, 380 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…thus, required to have been listed on the pretrial catalogue, but, when considered in light of the record, we see that it was merely cumulative of other evidence introduced by the defense at trial. Little v. Bankers National Life Insurance Company, 369 So. 2d 637 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Safeco Insurance Company of America v. [*1072] Albriza, 365 So. 2d 804 (Fla.4th DCA 1978); Walker v. City of Miami, 337 So. 2d 1002 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Hughes v. Canal Insurance Company, 308 So. 2d 552 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). Eastern S…
-
Rivas v. Nationwide Pers. Sec. Corp. & Arthur Hinton, 559 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ourt’s comments were in no way improper and fall far short of constituting a fundamental error. See Lusk v. State, 446 So. 2d 1038, 1042 (Fla.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 229, 83 L.Ed.2d 158 (1984); Little v. Bankers Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 369 So. 2d 637, 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); cf. Whitenight v. International Patrol & Detective Agency, Inc., 483 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986). Moreover, there is no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing an…
-
Palm Springs Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Varona, 504 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…446 So. 2d 1038 (Fla.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 229, 83 L.Ed.2d 158 (1984); Ed Ricke & Sons, Inc. v. Green, 468 So. 2d 908 (Fla.1985); Brumage v. Plummer, 502 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d [*462] DCA 1987); Little v. Bankers Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 369 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). In addition, we reject appellants’ contention that the amount of the jury verdict was excessive. Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1977); Walt Disney World Co. v. Goode, 501 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The remaining p…
Authorities Cited
- Love v. Hannah, 72 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1954)
- Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Keller Indus., Inc., 347 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Emmett Reeder v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 338 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Rosenfelder v. Huttoe, 66 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1953)