A. A. HOLIDAY RENT-A-CAR, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LILLIAN SANCHEZ MARTINEZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
PEGGY KEELE EDWARDS, 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.
This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a personal injury action arising from a rear-end automobile collision. The defendants challenge the trial court's refusal to admit impeachment evidence from unnamed witnesses and the court's jury instruction regarding quotient verdicts. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and no harmful error.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the unnamed witnesses, as only one of the four proffered witnesses would have served to impeach plaintiff's testimony, and the witnesses had not been named at the pretrial conference as required. The jury instruction on quotient verdicts did not depart materially from established law, and there was no showing the verdict was actually a quotient verdict.
“It is well settled in this court that a witness cannot be cross-examined as to any fact which is collateral or irrelevant to the issue, merely for the purpose of contradicting him by other evidence if he should deny it, thereby to discredit his testimony.”
Establishes the legal principle supporting exclusion of collateral impeachment evidence from unnamed witnesses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA rear-end automobile collision resulted in a personal injury lawsuit. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on liability…
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 Quotient Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an action for damages for per-" sonal injuries arising out of an automobile accident, a rear-end collision. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff on liability. Trial before a jury on damages resulted in a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $9,500. Judgment was entered thereon and defendants appealed, contending the trial court committed error in refusing to receive evidence from cer- ^ tain witnesses offered by the defendants for the purpose of impeaching the plaintiff- ■*- witness, and in a charge cautioning the jury against rendering a quotient verdict. We find no error and affirm. ^
At pretrial conference the parties were required to list the names of the witnesses intended to be used, and were informed by the trial judge that only those and such other witnesses as were named a designated time before trial would be permitted. Upon cross-examining the plaintiff at trial, as to the basis of her claim for pain and suffering, defendants brought out certain matter which plaintiff had alluded to in her deposition taken for discovery but concerning which she had not testified on direct. The record discloses the trial judge considered the matter just referred to as collateral or irrelevant to the issues, and not proper to be brought into the case.1 Defendants sought to introduce testimony of four witnesses to impeach the plaintiff with respect to such matter, none of whom had been named prior to trial. Objection to use of such witnesses was sustained. No formal proffer was made but at request of the court defendant’s counsel stated the substance of the intended testimony to be elicited therefrom. The appellee contends, and we agree, that of the testimony which would have been presented only that of one of the proffered witnesses would have served to impeach or contradict plaintiff’s testimony to which it was directed. In the circumstances presented, the action of the trial judge in rejecting the witnesses was not an abuse of discretion. See cases cited in footnote No. 1, and Atlas v. Siso, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 344; Henningsen v. Smith, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 85; Rose v. Yuille, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 318.
The challenged charge relating to quotient verdict did not depart materially from the law on the point as set out in the early case of Orange Belt Ry. Co. v. Craver, 32 Fla. 28, 13 So. 444, 446-447. See also, Marks v. State Road Department, Fla. 1954, 69 So.2d 771; Malone v. Marks Brothers Paving Co., Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 753. No harmful error was made to appear. There was no showing the verdict rendered was a quotient verdict, and on a poll of the jury when the verdict was received each of the jurors vouched for it as his verdict.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981)…retrial witness disclosure. Several cases suggest that a witness need not be disclosed if he is an “impeachment” witness. See Hartstone Concrete Products Co. v. Ivancevich, 200 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); A.A. Holiday Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Edwards, 190 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). At least one case appears to conclude that, subject to the trial judge’s discretion, a “rebuttal” witness need not be disclosed prior to trial. See Williamson Truck Lines, Inc. v. Kellar, 301 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Yet an…
Authorities Cited
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Crosby, 53 Fla. 400 (Fla. 1907)
- Marks v. State Rd. Dep't, 69 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1954)
- Fields v. State, 46 Fla. 84 (Fla. 1903)
- Diamante Urga v. State, 155 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Henningsen v. Smith, 174 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- The Orange Belt Ry. Co. v. Craver, 32 Fla. 28 (Fla. 1893)
- Rose v. Yuille, 88 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1956)
- Malone v. Marks Bros. Paving Co., 168 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Sol Atlas v. Henriequeta Siso and Luis Siso, 188 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)