GERALD MAURICE ARSENAULT, MAURICE ARSENAULT, D/B/A MAURICE AUTO TRIM, AND HARRY POLOFSKY D/B/A HARRY'S AUTO SALE, APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD E. THOMAS, 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 appellants could not complain on appeal about the trial court's failure to apply a statute that they themselves had invited the court to disregard by their trial conduct and requests.
The appellee was injured in an automobile accident involving three vehicles. The appellee settled with the driver of the third car and executed a rele…
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 Concurrent Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final judgment rendered on á jury verdict in favor of the ap-pellee for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The accident involved three automobiles. Prior to the institution of suit in the court below, the appellee executed a release and covenant not to sue the driver of the third car, Gail Whitehead. Consideration for the release and covenant not to sue was $8,800.
The appellants urged, as one of the defenses in their answer, that any recovery by the appellee should be reduced by the amount paid appellee under the covenant not to sue. During the course of the trial, the appellants introduced in evidence, over the objection of the appellee, the covenant not to sue given by the appellee to Gail Whitehead. At the conclusion of all the testimony and at the express request of the appellants, the court instructed the jury on the issue raised by the defense interposed in the appellant’s answer, namely the diminution of any verdict that may be found in favor of the appellee, where such verdict would be predicated upon a finding of concurrent negligence on the part of the appellants and Gail Whitehead. This charge was given over the objection of the appel-lee.
The jury returned a verdict in the sum of $13,800 and indicated by its verdict that they found Gail Whitehead also negligent.This portion of the verdict was stricken sua sponte by the trial judge as surplusage.
The sole point raised by the appellants on this appeal is the alleged failure of the trial judge to apply the provisions of § 54.-28, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the pertinent portions of which provide:
“(1) A release or convenant not to sue as to one tort-feasor for property damage to, personal injury of, or the wrongful death of any person shall not operate to release or discharge the liability of any other tort-feasor who may be liable for the same tort or death.
“(2) At any trial, if any defendant shall make it appear to the court that the plaintiff, or any person lawfully on his behalf, has delivered a release or convenant not to sue to any person, firm or corporation in partial satisfaction of the damages sued for, the court shall, at the time of rendering judg-*122merit, set-off such amount from the amount of any judgment to which the plaintiff would be otherwise entitled and enter judgment accordingly.
“(3) The fact of such a release or covenant not to sue, or that any defendant has been dismissed by order of the court, shall not be made known to the jury.”
This cause was tried in the court below beginning on July 8, 1957, and the provisions of § 54.28, supra (chapter 57-395), became effective on June 19, 1957. Neither the court nor counsel for the respective parties appear to have been aware of the provisions of the aforesaid section. Consequently no request was made by counsel for either of the parties to apply the provisions of said section during the course of the trial. Approximately a week after the rendition of the verdict, the appellants, by motion, urged the application of § 54.28, supra.
We conclude that the error relied upon by appellants is without merit and that no prejudice has resulted. Their position, in substance, before this court is a complaint of errors invited by them, a situation which at best is inconsistent. In Roe v. Henderson, 139 Fla. 386, 190 So. 618, 620, the Supreme Court of Florida in commenting upon a similar situation said:
“In this cause, however, the record discloses that the charge complained of was given at the request of the plaintiff in error and we must assume that it met the facts and conditions as they existed at the time. Otherwise a litigant may inject error into the record and take advantage of it which he should not be permitted to do.
* * * * * *
“The charge as a whole has been read and we do not find it amenable to the assault made on it. A large portion of it was requested by the plaintiff in error and we do not see that he is in position to complain.”
See 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 17, 313; 3 Am. Jur., Appeal & Error, 876; Bacon v. Green, 36 Fla. 325, 18 So. 870; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Levy, 68 Fla. 234, 67 So. 47; Cole Motor Car Co. v. O’Kelly, 101 Fla. 198, 133 So. 874. Where a litigant requests and receives a favorable ruling, he cannot later on appeal be heard to complain of the actions of the trial judge in acceding to his requests. Stephens v. Keen, 68 Fla. 558, 67 So. 226.
No error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and TEAR-SON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Ellison v. State, 349 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…s defense counsel who first opened the door to the line of questioning. Florida courts follow the “invited error” rule, which stands for the proposition that an appellant may not take advantage of an error which he has induced. Arsenault v. Thomas, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla.3d DCA 1958); City of Coral Gables v. Levlson, 220 So. 2d 430 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1974); Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794 (Fla.4th DCA 1974). Constitutional rights may be waived just as other rights may be…
-
Commodore Plaza AT Century 21 Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Cohen, 350 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…utes (1975). The controversy was resolved by [*507] the parties agreeing to the trial court’s deferring of ruling on the distribution of the escalated rentals, pending determination of that issue by the Supreme Court of Florida. Arsenault v. Thomas, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1962); Union Trust Company v. Baker, 143 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A. 1962); Holmes v. School Board of Orange County, 301 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1974). Therefore, we find no error in the order and judgment appealed in Cases Nos.…
-
Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…ror induced by counsel for the appellant and she will not now be heard to complain of the trial court’s action in accordance with the request and stipulation of her counsel. Borst v. Gale, 99 Fla. 376, 126 So. 290; Arsenault v. Thomas, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 120; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 313; Accord, Gagnon v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 337. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the orders here under review be and the same are hereby affirmed. Affirmed. . No contention has been made that the lien s…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bacon v. Louen N. Green, 36 Fla. 325 (Fla. 1895)
- Roe v. Henderson, 139 Fla. 386 (Fla. 1939)
- Roess v. The Malsby Co., 69 Fla. 15 (Fla. 1915)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Levy, 68 Fla. 234 (Fla. 1914)
- Cole Motor Car Co. v. O'Kelly, 101 Fla. 198 (Fla. 1931)
- Stephens v. Keen, 68 Fla. 558 (Fla. 1915)