CLIFFORD CORBETT, APPELLANT,
v.
MILTON BERG, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a jury verdict for the plaintiff in a personal injury case, holding that the trial judge erred in excluding a certified public record (a workers' compensation claim index card) that would have impeached the plaintiff's testimony about the origins of his injuries.
The court held that the trial judge erred in refusing to admit the certified index card into evidence. The index card, as a public record kept by an authorized public officer, was admissible under the public record exception to the hearsay rule and constituted prima facie evidence of what it purported to show. A duly certified copy of such a public record was also admissible.
“The index card was a public record kept by an authorized public officer as a convenient and appropriate mode of discharging the duties and functions of his office.”
Establishes that the document qualifies as a public record admissible under the hearsay exception
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Corbett sued defendant Berg for personal injuries and property damages from an automobile accident. During trial, defendant attempted to imp…
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 Property Damage cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the defendant from a final judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff pursuant to a jury verdict.
Plaintiff sued defendant for personal injuries and property damages sustained as a result of an automobile accident. During the trial, the defendant examined the plaintiff as to whether he had ever filed a workman’s compensation claim in April, 1948, while working for Perry Furniture Company, involving an injury to the lower spine and extremities. The plaintiff, while admitting that he worked for Perry Furniture Company in 1948 and that no one else with the same name was similarly employed, denied making any such claim.
Later on, during the course of the trial', the defendant attempted to introduce into evidence a duly certified copy of an original document prepared by the Florida Industria! Commission purporting to be an index card which assigned a claim number to a claim filed by the plaintiff for injuries to the lower extremities of the spine occurring on April 27, 1948 while the plaintiff was employed by Perry Furniture Company, Miami. (The file itself had been destroyed.) The document in question was submitted for the purposes of impeaching the plaintiff’s testimony and refuting plaintiff’s claim that his injuries resulted solely from the accident upon which this suit is based.
The trial judge refused to admit the document into evidence and defendant’s sole point on appeal is directed to this ruling.
We hold that the trial judge erred in refusing to admit the document in question into evidence and that such ruling constituted reversible error. The index card was a public record kept by an authorized public officer as a convenient and appropriate mode of discharging the duties and functions of his office. See: Bell v. Kendrick, 25 Fla. 778, 6 So. 868. As such, it would be admissible into evidence under the “public record” exception to the hearsay rule and would constitute prima facie evidence of what it purported to show. Smith v. Mott, Fla.1958, 100 So.2d 173. Since the index card would be admissible into evidence, a copy thereof, duly certified *198in accordance with § 92.12, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., would also be admissible.
The document in question was properly certified and the refusal of the trial judge to admit it into evidence constituted reversible error.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sikes v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 429 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…ry authority imposing a duty is irrelevant to the applicability of the public records hearsay exception. See, e.g., Branch v. State, 76 Fla. 558, 80 So. 482, 485 (1918); Bell v. Kendrick, 25 Fla. 778, 6 So. 868, 869 (1889); see also Corbett v. Berg, 152 So. 2d 196, 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). These cases, however, apply the common law rule which, in our view, has been specifically superseded by the statutory requirement embodied in Section 90.803(8) of a legally imposed duty to report. The new Florida Evidence Co…
-
HAM v. Heintzeliman's Ford, Inc., 256 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…e hearsay rule and would constitute prima facie evidence of what it purported to show; and the duly certified copy thereof would also be admissible. Valdes v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Co., Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 119; Corbett v. Berg, Fla.App.1963, 152 So. 2d 196; Smith v. Mott, Fla.1957, 100 So. 2d 173; Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Knight, 1937, 130 Fla.733, 178 So. 898. See also F.S. Sections 92.12 and 119.011, F.S.A. Paraphrasing what the Supreme Court stated in Mutual, supra, if the verity of the…
-
Shalley v. Fiore, 161 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…njury which would have been an appropriate subject of defense. Unfortunately, the trial judge was not presented with any authorities by counsel [*19] at the time of argument in respect to this matter, and the case of Corbett v. Berg, Fla. App.1963, 152 So. 2d 196, had not been decided by this court and was not available. It appears that the trial judge erred in refusing to permit the interrogation by appellant’s counsel, and the introduction of the bill of complaint, as evidenced when the defense was pressin…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chas. W. Bell and Jerry B. Lockett v. Kendrick, 25 Fla. 778 (Fla. 1889)
- Smith v. Mott, 100 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1957)