HARRIS RENARD ANDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JERRY DEE DOWNING, 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 giving the last clear chance instruction, and while expert testimony may have been inadmissible, sufficient other evidence existed to go to the jury.
Defendant suffered a verdict and judgment in a personal injury action. The defendant appealed, arguing the court erred in failing to direct a verdict …
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 Last Clear Chance Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant in a personal injury action suffered a verdict and judgment in the amount of $45,000 in the trial court. Upon this appeal he presents two points: (1) the court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant, and (2) the court erred in giving an instruction upon the doctrine of last clear chance.
Appellant’s argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence hinges upon his contention that the testimony of an expert witness presented by the plaintiff was improperly admitted over objection. We are inclined to the view that the testimony of the expert was incompetent in that it amounted to a conclusion for which sufficient predicate was not set forth. Myers v. Korbly, Fla.App. 1958, 103 So.2d 215. But a review of the record reveals that there was sufficient evidence to require the case to go to the jury even if the expert testimony had been excluded. The appellant did not present a point or argue an assignment directed to the denial of its-motion for a new trial upon the ground of improperly admitted expert testimony.
The appellant further argues that the trial court improperly gave plaintiff’s requested instruction upon the doctrine of last clear chance. In this case the giving of the instruction was proper because the evidence as presented to the jury was susceptible of a determination which could make the doctrine applicable. James v. Keene, Fla.1961, 133 So.2d 297; Huff v. Belcastro, Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 476; Radtke v. Loud, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 891.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 314 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…itness. Indeed appellant’s attorney stipulated thereto. However, the subject matter of, and the predicate for, the opinion is an entirely different matter. (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Hill, supra; Anderson v. Downing, Fla.App. 3rd 1962, 146 So. 2d 622) Here the medical expert’s sole familiarity with the nature of the wounds was based on a 10 minute examination of an admittedly poor photograph of the wounds which, according to the witness’ own testimony, could hardly be observed except by use of a…
-
Anderson v. Downing, 150 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1963)…Certiorari discharged without opinion. 146 So. 2d 622.…
Authorities Cited
- Marlon A. James and Donald v. James, 133 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1961)
- Myers v. Korbly, 103 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Radtke v. Anne L. Loud, 98 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Dade Cnty., 98 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Tropical Chevrolet, Inc. v. G. A. C. Fin. Corp. OF Miami, 127 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Huff v. Belcastro, 127 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)