HERMAN A. SPANAGEL AND ELIZABETH SPANAGEL, APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD P. LOVE, JR., 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.
In a motor vehicle accident case, the trial court erred by allowing testimony that suggested one driver had not been charged with a traffic violation, which prejudiced the other driver's case. The appellate court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, finding that questions or allusions about traffic charges constitute prejudicial error warranting reversal.
Yes. The question and answer constituted prejudicial error warranting reversal and a new trial. The court reversed the order denying the motion for new trial, vacated the final judgment, and remanded for a new trial.
[1] A question or allusion suggesting a driver was or was not charged with a traffic violation in connection with an accident constitutes prejudicial error warranting a new t…
[2] The testimony of an investigating police officer who did not witness an accident regarding improper driving by a party is prejudicial error.
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“It is well settled that questions or allusions which suggest that a driver has or has not been charged with a traffic violation in connection with an accident constitute prejudicial error which, in appropriate circumstances, will warrant a new trial.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that such questions constitute prejudicial error warranting new trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHerman Spanagel and Richard Love, Jr., were involved in a motor vehicle accident and each sued the other for damages. During trial, Love's counsel ask…
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 New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
[*318] PETERSON, Judge.
This is an appeal of the denial of Herman A. Spanagel’s motion for new trial and entry of final judgment. We vacate the final judgment, reverse the order of denial, and remand for a new trial.
During a jury trial in which each of the drivers involved in a motor vehicle accident was seeking damages from the other, counsel for Richard P. Love, Jr., one of the drivers, asked an investigating police officer who had not witnessed the accident: “In the course of your investigation of this accident, did you determine that there was any improper driving on the part of Mr. Love?” Counsel for Spanagel, the other driver, objected. The court sustained the objection, and Spanagel’s attorney asked the court to instruct the jury to disregard the officer’s “no” answer at the time the objection was being made. Before any further evidence was presented to the jury, Spanagel’s attorney requested a mistrial. The request was denied. The requested instruction to the jury was not given; the reason is not apparent from the record, and the requested instruction may have been omitted through oversight.
The question and the answer given constituted prejudicial error. In Moore v. Taylor Concrete & Supply Co., Inc., 553 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), the court stated:
It is well settled that questions or allusions which suggest that a driver has or has not been charged with a traffic violation in connection with an accident constitute prejudicial error which, in appropriate circumstances, will warrant a new trial.
Moreover, in some circumstances the error has been deemed so harmful that a new trial was warranted even though the objecting party failed to move for a mistrial.
Moore, at 790-91 (citations omitted). While the question to the officer in the instant case did not include inquiry as to whether Love was charged with the accident, there can be no question that a reasonable person would conclude from the officer’s response that Love was not charged. A more subtle comment was the basis for reversal in Riedel v. Driscoll, 124 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), when a jury requested further instruction as to whether a defendant motorist was cited for a traffic violation. The court replied that whether a citation was issued was of no consequence and asked counsel if they agreed. The plaintiff’s counsel responded with, “Unfortunately, yes, Your Honor.” Id. at 47. Other decisions that have held that evidence of citations is so prejudicial as to require the granting of a mistrial include Albertson v. Stark, 294 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 4th DCA), dismissed, 299 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1974), and Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Johnson, 466 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See also MacNeil v. Singer, 389 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
The officer’s testimony in the instant case was especially critical since the only neutral witness testified that he remarked to a companion seconds before the collision between the two autos, “That sucker [Love] is really traveling.”
We reverse the order denying Spanagel’s motion for new trial, vacate the final judgment, and remand for new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial.
COWART, J„ and ANTOON, J„ II, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. Sherrie D. Byrd, 682 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…ased upon a witness’s statement indicating that the Plaintiff had received a traffic citation. The trial court found that the gratuitous comment was a clear implication of the Plaintiffs fault and granted a mistrial. We affirm. See Spanagel v. Love, 585 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). COBB, W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.…
-
Regla Hernandez v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 700 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…s a factual cause of the accident.) Florida law is well-settled that conclusions of an officer even suggesting that a driver has been charged with a traffic violation in connection with an accident constitute prejudicial error. See Spanagel v. Love, 585 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)(statement by police officer that there was no improper driving on the part of the defendant motorist required a new trial, as statement equated to a declaration by the police officer that no traffic summons had been issued in the…
-
Wainer v. Banquero, 713 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…o. 2d 466, 468 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 606 So. 2d 1Í65 (Fla.1992), statements suggesting that a driver did not receive a traffic citation in connection with an accident may constitute prejudicial error warranting reversal. See Spanagel v. Love, 585 So. 2d 317, 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (citing Moore v. Taylor Concrete & Supply Co., 553 So. 2d 787, 790-91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)). Further, “evidence of a [party’s] past driving record should not be made part of the jury’s considerations.” Dade County v. Carucci,…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Albertson v. Stark, 294 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Moore v. Taylor Concrete & Supply Co., Inc., 553 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Clark v. Hofacker, 124 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Johnson, 466 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Williams v. State, 299 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1974)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. & Howard Indus., Inc. v. Ladislad Zamora & State of Fla., 299 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1974)
- MacNEIL v. Singer, 389 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)