HARRY KATZ AND HILDA KATZ, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
RED TOP SEDAN SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
In this personal injury action, the Katzes appealed a jury verdict rendered in their favor after the defendant confessed liability, arguing the trial court erred in its jury instructions and evidentiary rulings. The appellate court found no error and affirmed the judgment.
The trial court committed no error. The jury was repeatedly informed of the defendant's admission of liability and found the defendant liable; the excluded physician testimony failed to meet the standard of 'reasonable medical certainty' and was cumulative; and once liability was admitted, further evidence regarding force and impact was unnecessary.
“the judgment not being "wholly" in their favor they have a right to seek appellate review”
Establishes that even though the judgment was in the plaintiffs' favor, they can appeal because it was not wholly favorable to their claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff wife was injured when a parked automobile owned by the defendant Red Top Sedan Service rolled down a ramp and pinned her between the bum…
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 Reasonable Medical Certainty cases and more on FLexlaw
T^e appellants (husband and wife), who were plaintiffs in the trial court in an "action for'personál injuries to the wife, seek reversal of a -final judgment rendered upon a jury’s verdict in their favor after a confession of liability by the defendant pri- or to the commencement of the trial; the judgment not being “wholly” in their favor they have a right to seek appellate review. See Lovett v. Lovett, 93 Fla. 611, 112 So. 768; Zigler v. Erler Corporation, 102 Fla. 981, 136 So. 718; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 10.
The appellants, in seeking reversal, urge error in three particulars: (1) failure of the trial judge to adequately charge on the admissions of liability by the defendant; (2) failure of the trial judge to permit a Question and'answer of a treating physician; contained in a deposition, to be read into the evidence in regard to permanent disability; and (3) failure of the trial judge to permit evidence- to be introduced as to the force and iínpaét which caused the injury.
We find no merit in any of the contentions faised by the appellants. As to the first, the plaintiffs requested no affirmative charge on the admission of liability by the defendant. The record reflects that, repeatedly through the trial, it was brought to the attention of the jury that the defendant admitted liability and that the jury, in fact, found the defendant liable. As to the second, the question attempted to be elicited from the doctor as an expert witness did not meet the test of “reasonable medical certainty”. See Westbrook v. Bacskai, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 241. The exclusion of this evidence on the point of permanent disability did not prevent the question of permanent disability being brought to the jury’s attention, as there had already been introduced into evidence testimony by a local doctor in regard to permanent disability, and the rejected testimony could have been no more than cumulative. As to the third point, the injured party testified to the facts and circumstances surrounding the injury, and that the force which injured her was by an automobile of the defendant, parked on a ramp, which rolled down and pinned her between the bumper of her car and that of the defendant, causing her to black out. The defendant offered no testimony to refute the evidence of the injured party and, therefore, liability having been admitted, no error is shown in the ruling of the trial judge preventing further evidence as to the force and impact that caused the injury. The appellants rely heavily on the recent case, of Schoeppl v. Okolowitz, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 124. The opinion in the cited case has been reviewed, and we do not find that it extends the principles laid down in Barton v. Miami Transit Co., Fla.1949, 42 So.. 2d 849. 'Therefore, the final judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wood v. Wolfe, 151 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669; Katz v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 136 So. 2d 11.…
-
Lucius Bonner McLEOD, Jr. v. Young, 257 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…concerns the necessity for making some objection, request, etc., see Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 173 So. 2d 492; Golden v. Harrell, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 350; Katz v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 136 So. 2d 11; Thorsell v. Miller, Fla.App.1965, 180 So. 2d 677; Arnold Owens, Inc. v. Balido, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 96. Forasmuch as we are advised, appellants deliberately chose, in view of the foregoing, to waive or attach no significance to such charge. I…
-
Save Anna Maria, Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp. & Dep't of Env't Prot., 700 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…t of said judgment at which he would be aggrieved and which would present grounds for review by an appellate court.” Thus, when a judgment is not wholly in a party’s favor, that party may seek appellate review. See Katz v. Red Top Sedan Serv., Inc., 136 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Res judicata and collateral estoppel concerns were addressed in this context in General Dev. Utilities, Inc. v. Florida Pub. Service Comm’n, Div. of Admin. Hearings, 385 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Although in that case, whi…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lovett v. Lovett, 112 So. 768 (Fla. 1927)
- Zigler v. Erler Corp., 102 Fla. 981 (Fla. 1931)
- Schoeppl v. Okolowitz, 133 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Westbrook v. Bacskai, 103 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)