WILLIAMSON CANDY COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, AND BENJAMIN KUDEVITZ AND ZINA KUDEVITZ, DOING BUSINESS AS CAUSEWAY SODA SHOP, APPELLANTS,
v.
HOMMIE LEE LEWIS, 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 appeal, the defendants challenged a jury verdict on three grounds: improper admission of evidence, insufficient weight of evidence, and improper reopening of plaintiff's case. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the verdict supported by the record and holding that admission of an X-ray report, though erroneous, was harmless because the plaintiff's injury was independently established.
The court affirmed the judgment on all three points. The admission of the X-ray report was improper but harmless error because the plaintiff's injury and the existence of an ulcer were clearly established by the treating physician's independent testimony. The verdict was sufficiently supported by the record, and the trial judge had proper discretion to allow reopening of the plaintiff's case.
“we have determined that the report was improperly admitted since the sole basis seems to have been the testimony of the treating physician that he referred the plaintiff for the examination and thereafter he received the report resulting therefrom”
Establishes that the X-ray report lacked proper foundation and was incorrectly admitted into evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants (Williamson Candy Company and the Kudewitzes) were found liable in a personal injury action. At trial, the plaintiff introduced an X-ra…
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 Reopening A Case cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants suffered an adverse verdict in a personal injury action and appeal from the final judgment entered on the verdict. They present three points on appeal. The first raises a question of error upon the admission of evidence; the second upon the manifest weight of the evidence, and the third upon the ruling of the trial judge which permitted plaintiff to reopen his case to introduce the mortality tables.
The second point required a review of the record, and while the appellants make a strong argument as to the credibility of certain evidence, it is our conclusion that the record is sufficient to support the verdict. See Brenner v. Smullian, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 44, 49. Further, the ruling of the trial judge allowing the plaintiff to reopen his case at the conclusion of all the evidence was clearly within the discretion of the judge. Volusia County Bank v. Bigelow, 45 Fla. 638, 33 So. 704, 709.
The first point presented, which we now consider last, presents a much closer question: Was it reversible error for the trial judge to admit into evidence an X-ray report prepared by a radiologist who did not testify, where other competent evidence fully established the injury? To begin with, *523we have determined that the report was improperly admitted since the sole basis seems to have been the testimony of the treating physician that he referred the plaintiff for the examination and thereafter he received the report resulting therefrom. See Depfer v. Walker, 125 Fla. 189, 169 So. 660. In this connection it should be noted that the radiologist’s report might have been admissible if offered and proved as a part of the hospital record under § 92.36, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. “Business records as evidence; uniform act”. See Stettler v. Huggins, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 534.
The radiologist’s report attempted to establish that the plaintiff had an ulcer. The existence of the ulcer was clearly established by the treating physician without reference to the report of the radiologist. We therefore affirm upon authority of the rule stated in Clark v. Orr, 127 Fla. 411, 173 So. 155, 158.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DELTA Rent-A-Dar, Inc. v. Rihl, 218 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…, Inc. v. Ryder Leasing, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 453; Arkin Construction Company v. Simpkins, Fla.1957, 99 So. 2d 557. . Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Hilborn, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 596; Williamson Candy Co. v. Lewis, Fla.App. 1962, 144 So. 2d 522; Myers v. Korbly, Fla.App.1958, 103 So. 2d 215.…
-
Brevard Cnty. v. Apel, 246 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…s scientific knowledge to the facts of a case see, McCormick, Law of Evidence, Section 16 (1954). .Section 59.041, Florida Statutes, 1969, F.S.A.; Smith v. Biscayne Park Estates, Fla.1949, 42 So. 2d 442; Williamson Candy Co. v. Lewis, Fla.App.1962, 144 So. 2d 522; Greenfield v. Bland, Fla.App.1958, 99 So. 2d 727.…
-
Thadeaus R. Culberson v. State, 210 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…e R. R. v. Hilborn, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 596, 598; Casso v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 252, 257, cert. denied mem., Fla.1966, 192 So. 2d 487; Cesario v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 896, 897; Williamson Candy Co. v. Lewis, Fla.App. 1962, 144 So. 2d 522-523. The fact that pneumonia had caused Mr. Griffin’s death was clearly established by the results of the examinations conducted by Dr. Shinner personally. Dr. Shinner stated specifically that even without the benefit of the laboratory tests he coul…
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
- Volusia Cnty. Bank v. Bigelow, 45 Fla. 638 (Fla. 1903)
- Al Brenner v. Smullian, 84 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1955)
- Depfer v. Walker, 125 Fla. 189 (Fla. 1935)
- Doty Clark v. Orr, 127 Fla. 411 (Fla. 1937)
- Stettler v. Huggins, 134 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)