LYDIA ADELINE VOLK, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH J. GOETZ AND WALTER C. GOETZ, HER HUSBAND, INDIVIDUALS, APPELLEES
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.
Lydia Adeline Volk appeals an order granting a new trial in a negligence action, challenging the trial court's decision to allow testimony regarding a traffic ticket issued to her. The court affirms the new trial order, holding that admission of such evidence constituted prejudicial error.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial. Testimony regarding a traffic ticket constitutes prejudicial error that warrants a new trial. The trial court's order granting the new trial motion is affirmed.
“The law is well settled that such testimony as alluded to above will constitute prejudicial error and warrant a new trial.”
Establishes the controlling law that testimony regarding traffic tickets is per se prejudicial error requiring a new trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVolk was sued by the Goetzes for negligence arising from an automobile accident. During the plaintiffs' medical expert testimony, unsolicited referenc…
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 Trial Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant-defendant, Lydia Adeline Volk, appeals an order granting a new trial to the appellees-plaintiffs, Elizabeth J. Goetz and Walter C. Goetz, in an action to recover damages for injuries allegedly incurred as a result of the negligence of the defendant in the operation of her automobile.
During the course of the trial counsel for the defendant on cross-examination of a medical witness for the plaintiff received in part an unsolicited answer relating to the issuance of a traffic ticket to the defendant on the date of the accident.
There was no request by counsel for the defendant to strike that portion of the answer relating to the traffic ticket, nor did he request of the judge an instruction to the jury directing the jury to completely disregard the statement pertaining to the traffic ticket.
Thereafter, defendant’s counsel put his client on the stand and asked her whether or not she had received a traffic ticket as a result of the accident. Plaintiffs’ counsel timely objected to this question. However, the trial court overruled his objection.
Subsequently, the jury brought in a verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff thereafter moved for a new trial. Said motion was granted on the basis that it was prejudicial error for the court to allow the above testimony pertaining to the traffic ticket over timely objection by the plaintiff.
The law is well settled that such testimony as alluded to above will constitute prejudicial error and warrant a new trial. Riedel v. Driscoll, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 42; Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Company, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 507.
*251Finally, it should be noted that, when a motion for a new trial is made, it is directed to the sound, broad discretion of the trial judge who, because of his contact with the trial and his observation of the behavior of those upon whose testimony the finding of fact must be based, is better positioned than any one person fully to comprehend the processes by which the ultimate decision of the triers of fact, the jurors, is reached. Inasmuch as such motions are granted in the exejrcjs.e ,of„.sound, broad discretion, the rulings of the trial judge should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that it has been abused. Cloud v. Fallis, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 669.
Affirmed.
REED, J., and HEWITT, ROBERT S., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. Taylor Concrete & Supply Co., Inc., 553 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…Royal Indemnity Co. v. Muscato, 305 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. denied, 321 So. 2d 76 (Fla.1975); Walton v. Robert E. Haas Construction Corp., 259 So. 2d 731, 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 265 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1972); Volk v. Goetz, 206 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). See also MacNeil v. Singer, 389 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Nadler v. Home Ins. Co., 339 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). [*791] Moreover, in some circumstances the error has been deemed so harmful that a new trial was warrant…
-
Royal Indem. Co. v. Phillip J. Muscato et ux., 305 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…n could not possibly erase the effect of the prejudicial questions from the mind of the jury in their consideration of liability. Eggers v. Phillips Hardware, 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1956); Riedel v. Driscoll, 124 So. 2d 42 (Fla.App.1960); Volk v. Goetz, 206 So. 2d 250 (Fla.App.1967); Walton v. Robert E. Haas Construction Corp., 259 So. 2d 731 (Fla.App.1972). While we conclude that the improper line of questioning by the plaintiffs’ attorney requires that the defendants be granted a new trial, we feel that such t…
-
Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Johnson, 466 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…appellee as a result of the accident and instructed the jury not to consider or discuss the question and answer. . Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Company, 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1956); Riedel v. Driscoll, 124 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960); Volk v. Goetz, 206 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Royal Indemnity Company v. Muscato, 305 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). . The tentative ruling which the trial court adopted as its final ruling is found in the court’s Exhibit "A”, entitled “MEMORANDUM RE: Motion in Limine Hea…
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
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Co., 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1956)
- Clark v. Hofacker, 124 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)