CHARLES M. RICHARDSON, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., APPELLEES
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 questioning a witness about a prior traffic ticket was permissible when the witness opened the door by testifying they drove within the law. The jury's finding of contributory negligence precluded relief.
Appellant sued after a car collision. The trial court dismissed the suit against one defendant and a jury found for another defendant based on Appella…
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 Impeachment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This action arose as the result of a collision involving automobiles operated by Appellant and by one William E. Bates, Jr. This appeal is taken from the judgment of the lower court dismissing Appellant’s suit against Crown Zellerbach Corporation, from the jury verdict in favor of American Motorists Insurance Company, Bates’ employer and insurer respectively, and from the order denying the motion for new trial. We affirm.
Appellant contends that the trial judge improperly permitted opposing counsel, on cross-examination, to question him regarding a traffic ticket received prior to the accident near the scene of the collision. It is normally improper to interject evidence of prior speeding convictions into a personal injury suit. In the present instance, however, where Appellant opened the door into this area by voluntarily asserting that he drove within the law, it was proper to use the speeding conviction to question the credibility of Appellant’s testimony.
In answer to special interrogatories, the jury indicated that their verdict was based on the contributory negligence of Appellant. Such a verdict precludes relief against Bates’ employer, Crown Zellerbach Corporation. Therefore, Appellant’s second contention, that the trial judge improperly directed a verdict at the close of the evidence, is moot.
Affirmed.