POPPY K. CHIMERAKIS AND JAMES CHIMERAKIS, PETITIONERS,
v.
ANN E. EVANS, RESPONDENT
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 Supreme Court reversed the District Court of Appeal's affirmance of a jury verdict for the defendant in a negligence action arising from an automobile collision. The trial court erroneously excluded evidence of the defendant's violation of a traffic ordinance and her guilty plea to that violation, which constituted admissible evidence of negligence that should have been presented to the jury.
A plea of guilty in a criminal proceeding is admissible in a civil action as an admission against interest, and violation of a traffic ordinance constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence that must be submitted to the jury along with other evidence in the case. The trial court's exclusion of this evidence was clear error warranting reversal and a new trial.
“a plea of guilty in a criminal proceeding is admissible in a civil action as an admission against interest”
Establishes the admissibility standard for guilty pleas in civil negligence cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners sued respondent to recover damages for injuries from an intersection automobile collision at Miracle Mile and Galiano in Coral Gables. The…
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 Miscarriage Of Justice Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District.1
Plaintiffs, petitioners herein, sued defendant, respondent herein, to recover for injuries resulting from an intersectional automobile collision. The trial court (1) excluded from evidence the pertinent provision of the Metropolitan Dade County Traffic Code (the accident occurred at the intersection of Miracle Mile and Galiano in Coral Gables); (2) excluded evidence of defendant’s plea of guilty to the violation in the Metropolitan Court of Dade County; and (3) denied plaintiffs the right to cross-examine the defendant concerning her plea of guilty.
The jury returned a verdict for defendant and plaintiffs appealed. The district court affirmed, holding the errors of the trial court in refusing to allow in evidence the Traffic Code and defendant’s plea of guilty to violation thereof were not prejudicial. This decision conflicts with cases holding such evidence admissible2 and highly pertinent.3 In Boshnack v. World Wide Rent-A-Car, Inc., 195 So.2d 216 (Fla. 1967), this Court held that a plea of guilty in a criminal proceeding is admissible in a civil action as an admission against interest.
Where, as here, error is clearly made to appear, injury is presumed to follow.4 The violation of a traffic ordinance in the instant case was prima facie evidence of negligence which should have been submitted to the jury along with other evidence in the case,5 including defendant’s admission of guilt.
Accordingly, the decision of the District Court is quashed and the cause remanded for a new trial consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, ADKINS and CALDWELL (Retired), JJ., concur.
THORNAL, Acting C. J., dissents with Opinion.
(dissenting) .
The entire opinion of the District Court of Appeal, which the majority has quashed, reads as follows:
“This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a final judgment entered for defendant pursuant to a jury verdict of not guilty in a suit charging defendant with negligence in the operation of her automobile causing injuries to the plaintiffs.
“Plaintiffs seek reversal on the ground that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the Metropolitan Dade County Traffic Code, in excluding evidence of defendant’s plea of guilty to the violation, and in denying plaintiffs the right to cross examine the defendant concerning her plea of guilty.
“We have carefully considered appellants’ contentions in the light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel and have concluded that the errors complained of were not so prejudicial as to result in a miscarriage of justice. Powell *737v. Wilson Lumber Co. of Florida, 115 Fla. 13, 155 So. 116; Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 120 (Emphasis added).
“Accordingly the judgment appealed is affirmed.
“Affirmed.”
As I read this opinion it simply means that the District Court examined the entire record, including the transcript of testimony, and concluded that the alleged errors were not sufficiently prejudicial as to produce a miscarriage of justice.
As I read the majority opinion my colleagues simply disagree with this finding by the District Judges and quash their judgment. This is simply another case where this Court has seen fit to allow a second appeal. I think the Constitution of Florida does not authorize it.
I, therefore, respectfully dissent because of lack of jurisdiction' in this Court.
THORNAL, Acting Chief Justice
(dissenting) .
The entire opinion of the District Court of Appeal, which the majority has quashed, reads as follows:
“This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a final judgment entered for defendant pursuant to a jury verdict of not guilty in a suit charging defendant with negligence in the operation of her automobile causing injuries to the plaintiffs.
“Plaintiffs seek reversal on the ground that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the Metropolitan Dade County Traffic Code, in excluding evidence of defendant’s plea of guilty to the violation, and in denying plaintiffs the right to cross examine the defendant concerning her plea of guilty.
“We have carefully considered appellants’ contentions in the light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel and have concluded that the errors complained of were not so prejudicial as to result in a miscarriage of justice. Powell v. Wilson Lumber Co. of Florida, 115 Fla. 13, 155 So. 116; Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 120 (Emphasis added).
“Accordingly the judgment appealed is affirmed.
“Affirmed.”
As I read this opinion it simply means that the District Court examined the entire record, including the transcript of testimony, and concluded that the alleged errors were not sufficiently prejudicial as to produce a miscarriage of justice.
As I read the majority opinion my colleagues simply disagree with this finding by the District Judges and quash their judgment. This is simply another case where this Court has seen fit to allow a second appeal. I think the Constitution of Florida does not authorize it.
I, therefore, respectfully dissent because of lack of jurisdiction' in this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seaboard Coastline R.R. Co. v. Addison, 502 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1987)…aw. Standard Instruction 4.11 was the instruction that should have been given by the trial court. This instruction tracks the established rule of law that a violation of a traffic regulation is evidence of negligence. See, e.g., Chimerakis v. Evans, 221 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1969), and Clark v. Sumner, 72 So. 2d 375 (Fla.1954). When there is evidence of such a violation a party, is entitled to a jury instruction thereon. This is simply a specific application of the equally established rule of law that a party is en…
-
MacNEIL v. Singer, 389 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…ty plea is a kind of “admission against interest.” Absent an express exclusionary rule such as is contained in section 318.14(4)(b), it may be introduced in a civil action against a party, if relevant and material to the issues. Chimerakis v. Evans, 221 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1969); Boshnack v. World Wide Rent-A-Car, Inc., 195 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1967). However, it is axiomatic that any such admission must be made by-, the party against whom it is offered, or with his consent, direction, or concurrence.5 Mizell v. Trave…
-
Carter v. Musa Tony Rukab & S.C. Ins. Co., 437 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…s substantive evidence. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 803.18, p. 287. In that vein, past decisions of this state hold that a plea of guilty to a traffic offense is admissible as an admission against interest by a party opponent. Chimerakis v. Evans, 221 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1969); Boshnack v. World Wide Rent-A-Car, Inc., 195 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1967). However, the rule of admissibility was changed in 1974 when the legislature decriminalized certain minor traffic violations. The new law provided that any person charge…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Griffith v. Shamrock Vill., Inc., 94 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1957)
- Pillet v. Ershick, 99 Fla. 483 (Fla. 1930)
- Bryant v. City OF Tampa, 100 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Arsenault v. Thomas, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Blue & Gray Cab Co. v. Annetta J. Lowe, 143 Fla. 129 (Fla. 1940)
- S. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Schmitt, 195 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1967)
- Boshnack v. World Wide Rent-A-Car, Inc., 195 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1967)
- Jewell Powell v. Wilson Lumber Co., 115 Fla. 13 (Fla. 1934)
- Douglass v. E. Douglass v. Joe Sapotnick, Jr., 126 Fla. 753 (Fla. 1937)