JOHN KELLY, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting witness testimony or refusing to interview a juror.
Plaintiff appealed a jury verdict for the defendant, raising several points of error regarding the admission of testimony and the denial of motions fo…
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 Invited Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a final judgment pursuant to a jury verdict for the defendant. Five points are presented, the first two of which urge error upon the admission of the testimony of a witness for the defendant. The first argument presented concerns the fact that the witness’s evidence was incompetent, and the second argument concerns the fact that the witness’s name was not on the pretrial inventory. Our review of the record fails to substantiate the plaintiff’s claim that the testimony was incompetent. See Florida Power Corporation v. Wenzel, 113 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); see also Davis v. State, 348 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). With regard to the plaintiff’s second ground for exclusion of testimony, we find reversal on this basis to be precluded by the principles of waiver or invited error as set forth in Nadler v. Home Insurance Company, 339 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
The point urging error upon the denial of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial because the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence does not present reversible error on this record. See Williams v. Bryant, 301 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); and B. W. Butler, Inc. v. Anderman, 279 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
The remaining point going to the court’s refusal of the plaintiff’s motion to interview a juror does not present error. Cf. Shad v. Florida East Coast Railway Company, 236 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), and Petroleum Carriers Corp. v. Summerlin, 112 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Power Corp. v. Otto Wenzel, 113 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Nadler v. Home Ins. Co., 339 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Davis v. State, 348 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Petroleum Carriers Corp. v. Summerlin, 112 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Shad v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., Inc., 236 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- B. W. Butler, Inc. v. Byran Anderman, 279 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Williams v. Bryant, 301 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)