WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DOROTHY H. SHELDON, 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.
Winn-Dixie Stores appeals a jury verdict for a customer injured by a grocery cart allegedly pushed by store employee. The appellate court affirms, rejecting the defendant's arguments regarding jury instructions on sympathy and the trial court's refusal to reopen the case for impeaching evidence.
The trial court did not err. A general charge covering the subject of sympathy is sufficient and the trial court has discretion in framing jury instructions. The court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to reopen the case for impeaching testimony after the employee had been identified by name during trial.
“The general charge as given sufficiently covered the question of sympathy though not stressed as strongly as the defendant would have desired.”
Establishes that a general charge on sympathy in a jury instruction, even if not specifically emphasized, is sufficient to address defendant's concern.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Sheldon was injured while shopping at a Winn-Dixie grocery store when struck in the head by a grocery cart allegedly shoved by a checkout counter…
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 Discretion Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
Winn-Dixie Stores! Inc., the defendant, appeals a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict for the plaintiff, Mrs. Dorothy H. Sheldon.
Plaintiff was injured while shopping in a grocery store operated by the defendant when she was struck in the head by a grocery cart allegedly shoved by one of the *668girls at the checkout counter. Plaintiff immediately reported the accident to the store manager, who made an investigation at the time.
The defendant raises two issues on appeal. The first is the refusal of the court to give .a requested instruction on sympathy copied verbatim from Loftin v. Skelton, 1943, 152 Fla. 437, 12 So.2d 175. The defendant described itself as a target defendant, apparently meaning a defendant obviously able to pay a sizable judgment when being sued by a wage earner or other person of limited means. The court included in its general charge on both liability and damages that the jury must not be deviated in its decision by sympathy for one side or the other. The general charge as given sufficiently covered the question of sympathy though not stressed as strongly as the defendant would have desired. Such type of charge has been held sufficient. Black v. Heininger, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 3.
In Loftin v. Skelton, supra, no charge on sympathy was given. The court said that the requested charged should have been given but it did not go so far as to say that the subject could not be covered sufficiently by the general charge on the subject and thereby limit the trial court in the exercise of its sound discretion in framing charges to be given to the jury.
The second issue raised is the refusal of the court at the request of the defendant to reopen its case after close of rebuttal testimony of the plaintiff for the purpose of the introduction of a deposition and interrogatories of the plaintiff which tended to show a lack of knowledge as to which employee of the defendant, if any, actually pushed the cart which caused the injury.
In the early stages of the case the girl who apparently pushed the cart into the plaintiff was referred to as the “new girl.” As the trial progressed she was identified by name. Such fact was held by the court not sufficient justification for the reopening of the case for the purpose of impeachment. The ruling of the court was correct in that the admission or rejection of impeaching testimony is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Winner v. Sharp, Fla.1949, 43 So.2d 634.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, J., and STURGIS, WALLACE E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bush v. State, 809 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…he had not encountered the officer). A trial court’s decision to permit a party to offer rebuttal testimony is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. Cruse v. State, 588 So. 2d 983, 990 (Fla.1991); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Sheldon, 184 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). We find no abuse of discretion in permitting rebuttal evidence to Blank’s testimony. Bush also asserts that a new trial is warranted because two state expert witnesses improperly gave an opinion as to Bush’s guilt. A witne…
-
Lillier Ivory v. State, 821 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…admission of the rebuttal testimony. A trial court’s decision to permit a party to offer rebuttal testimony is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. Cruse v. State, 588 So. 2d 983, 990 (Fla.1991); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Sheldon, 184 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). Rebuttal evidence is subject to the same rules of evidence as evidence presented during direct examination. See, e.g., Hunt v. State, 429 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). In this instance, the admission of the rebuttal eviden…
-
Inter-American Transp. Equip. Co. v. Frank, 227 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…e appellate court will not disturb an order of the lower court in the exercise of its judicial discretion unless a clear and palpable abuse is demonstrated. Winner v. Sharp, Fla. 1949, 43 So. 2d 634; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Sheldon, Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 667. We must agree with the appel-lee’s position, and adhere to the general principle of appellate law that this court will not disturb a discretionary ruling by the trial judge unless the record on appeal clearly demonstrates an abuse of discretion. W…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winner v. Sharp, 43 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1949)
- Loftin v. Skelton, 152 Fla. 437 (Fla. 1943)
- Helms v. Kelly, 163 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)