MR. LAND, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JERRY RABINOWITZ, 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 testimony about a settlement offer, in its handling of counsel's summation, or in excluding documentary evidence not presented at pre-trial.
Plaintiff sued defendant for compensation under an employment agreement and obtained a jury verdict. Defendant appealed, raising several points includ…
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 Pretrial Conference cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by appellant, defendant below, from a jury’s verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff, in a suit to recover compensation due under an employment agreement.
The appellant has raised several points on appeal, among which are: improper testimony relative to a proposed settlement, misstatements in closing summation by counsel for the plaintiff, failure to permit introduction of documentary evidence at the time of the trial which was not submitted at the pre-trial conference, and insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Upon examination of the record, these points raised have failed to convince us of any error of the proceedings in the trial court.
The complained of statements, relative to settlement, occurred at the time the officers and agents of the defendant notified the plaintiff that he was discharged, at which time he immediately demanded an accounting of the monies due him. Whereupon said officers tendered to him $500 *860upon the execution of a general release. This occurred immediately upon the discharge and prior to either side employing any counsel and, obviously, prior to any law suit being instituted, and does not come within the general prohibition against statements as to compromise and settlement but was admissible as events and circumstances surrounding the discharge as res gestae to the discharge. Hood v. French, 37 Fla. 117, 19 So. 165; 13 Fla.Jur., Evidence, § 274.
In the closing summation, counsel for the plaintiff may have inadvertently mis-stated the evidence, but from an examination of the entire case it does not appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, it constitutes no more than harmless error. 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 360; F.S. § 54.23, F.S.A. As to the failure of the trial court to permit the documentary evidence to be introduced at the time of the trial, which had not been identified at the pre-trial conference, no abuse of discretion was shown. It is evident that the documents were in the possession of the defendant or its counsel prior to the pre-trial conference and it could have reasonably been anticipated that they would have been needed at the time of the trial. If it had been demonstrated that the documents were not available prior to the pre-trial conference, or the trial court in its discretion had found that their use could not have been anticipated, the trial court might have been correct in a different ruling. See on this subject Rose v. Yuille, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 318.
The appellant has attempted to raise the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. This case was tried before a jury, and the record fails to disclose that any motion for directed verdict or motion for new trial was filed asserting this as a ground for new trial. Therefore, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence before the jury has not been appropriately brought to this court. Murray v. Murray, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 425; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, §§ 70, 71.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the final judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nordyne, Inc. v. Fla. Mobile Home Supply, Inc., 625 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…erve that issue for review. See, e.g., Ruth v. Sorensen, 104 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1958); Southern American Fire Ins. Co. v. Rinzler, 324 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Winnemore v. Morton, 214 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Mr. Land, Inc. v. Rabinowitz, 134 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Had Nordyne preserved its right to challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to support the claims for fraud and interference with business relationships, the outcome on this issue would be unaffected. Our review of th…
-
Crawford v. Latha Shivashankar & Allstate Ins. Co., 474 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…exhibit list furnished by appellant pursuant to the court’s pre-trial order, and appellant’s objection on that ground was properly sustained. Eastern S.S. Lines, Inc. v. Martial, 380 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Cf, Mr. Land, Inc. v. Rabinowitz, 134 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Regarding the trial court’s refusal to allow Dr. Hartwig’s medical opinion derived from the thermogram tests, we find that under the circumstances of this case any error in the court’s exclusion of this evidence was harmless.1 H…
-
Rodriguez v. Rattan, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…re: Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc. v. Martial, 380 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); King Pest Control v. Binger, 379 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Kramlich Associates, Inc. v. Robins, 312 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Mr. Land, Inc. v. Rabinowitz, 134 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rose v. Yuille, 88 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1956)
- Hood v. Abraham French & Co., 37 Fla. 117 (Fla. 1896)
- Murray v. Murray, 117 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)