LINDA D. LESLIE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROGER T. HIGGASON AND NEVLINE R. HIGGASON, 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.
Linda Leslie appeals a defense verdict in a personal injury case arising from a 1996 automobile accident. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of a settlement amount from a prior 1988 accident, which was irrelevant to the current negligence claim.
The trial court erred in admitting the settlement amount from the prior 1988 accident because it was irrelevant to the issues being tried in the current case. While evidence of the previous injury itself was relevant to show aggravation, the specific settlement amount had no bearing on the current negligence claim.
[1] The admission of the amount of a prior settlement for an unrelated accident is irrelevant and constitutes reversible error in a personal injury action.
[2] Evidence of a prior settlement amount is inadmissible when the prior injury is relevant only to show aggravation of a pre-existing condition.
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“While Mrs. Leslie's previous injury was relevant, the settlement amount from the previous injury was clearly irrelevant to the issues being tried.”
Establishes the core holding that while evidence of prior injury can be relevant to show aggravation, the settlement amount itself is not relevant to the current negligence claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeslie was injured in an April 1996 automobile accident caused by Roger Higgason's negligent operation of his vehicle. Leslie had previously suffered …
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 Evidentiary Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.
Linda D. Leslie appeals from the defense verdict in her action to recover for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. She presents three issues on appeal. We limit our discussion to an evidentiary ruling: the admission of the amount of a settlement from an accident that occurred some eight years before the accident at issue in this case. Because the settlement amount was erroneously admitted, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
In her complaint, Leslie alleged that she sustained permanent injuries in an April 1996 accident in which Roger Higgason negligently operated his automobile. Leslie contended that she suffered injuries to her temporomandibular joint and neck as a result of the accident with Higgason. Leslie had previously sustained injuries to this joint and her neck in a 1988 automobile accident. Thus, Leslie’s claim against Higgason was based on allegations of aggravation to the prior injuries.
During the direct examination of Mrs. Leslie’s husband, he stated that he-could not afford to pay for the surgery that would relieve Mrs. Leslie’s suffering. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Mr. Leslie to tell the jury the amount of the settlement from the 1988 automobile accident. Mrs. Leslie’s counsel objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial judge allowed the question and Mr. Leslie acknowledged that Mrs. Leslie was paid $66,000 following the 1988 motor vehicle accident.
Although there is no reported Florida case directly on point and neither party cited any controlling cases, we conclude that there was no basis for the admission of this evidence. The majority of the courts that have ruled on this specific question have determined it was improper. See Alonzo v. With, 214 Cal.App.2d 753, 29 Cal.Rptr. 710, 714-15 (1963); Ferriola v. Burdick, 146 Conn. 574, 153 A. 2d 319, 320 (1959); Nepple v. Weifenbach, 274 N.W. 2d 728, 733 (Iowa 1979); Boyd v. Smith, 390 So. 2d 994, 997 (Miss.1980); Larsen v. Johnson, 958 P. 2d 953, 957 (Utah Ct.App. 1998). But see Kelsey v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co., 264 Minn. 49, 117 N.W. 2d 559, 563 (1962). While Mrs. Leslie’s previous injury was relevant, the settlement amount from the previous injury was clearly irrelevant to the issues being tried. As such, the trial court erred in allowing the testimony. The error was compounded when defense counsel repeatedly emphasized the amount during closing argument. The admission of this irrelevant testimony was reversible error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
We need not address the remaining issues raised by Mrs. Leslie; one is without merit and the second is now moot.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pettigrew, 884 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…CA 1969) (holding that “plaintiffs character as being litigious is certainly not in issue”). The amount of a settlement or judgment for a prior injury is inadmissible because it is “clearly irrelevant to the issues being tried.” Leslie v. Higgason, 779 So. 2d 470, 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Evidence concerning a “[plaintiffs] previous injury” may, however, be relevant to the issue of the defendant’s liability or the amount of damages due. Id. [*197] There are also circumstances where evidence specifically conce…
-
Williams v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc., 973 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…s. While the earlier injuries suffered by Mr. Williams may have had some measure of relevancy in the present case, the amount recovered in the prior lawsuit was simply not germane and should not have been elicited by Lowe’s. See Leslie v. Higgason, 779 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In fact, the vast majority of courts of the United States that have considered the issue have determined that such questions are improper. See Alonzo v. With, 214 Cal.App.2d 753, 29 Cal.Rptr. 710 (1963); Ferriola v. Burdick, 146…
-
Jackson v. Albright, 120 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…fense to question Douglas as to funds that she may have had available from her earlier substantial recovery. Commendably, and consistent with his ethical responsibilities, in appellee Al-bright’s answer brief, counsel points out Leslie v. Higgason, 779 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), which at first blush seems to suggest that the evidence of the amount of a prior settlement is inadmissible as impeachment where the plaintiff claims inability to pay for surgery from the current accident. There, Mrs. Leslie brou…