JOHN ROBERT DAWSON, APPELLANT,
v.
LLOYD EMIL JOHNSON, SR., 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 appellate court affirmed a jury verdict and judgment against Dawson, who was found negligent for a horse-related traffic fatality. The court found substantial evidence supported the verdict and that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in admitting expert testimony.
Yes, there was substantial, competent evidence to support the jury's verdict. No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony.
“Although the evidence was conflicting as to the ownership of the horse and the alleged negligence, we find substantial, competent evidence in the record to sustain the jury verdict.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that the jury's decision was supported by sufficient evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLloyd Emil Johnson, Sr. sued John Robert Dawson and another party for negligence, alleging their horse caused a collision that killed his minor son, w…
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 Expert Testimony Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
John Robert Dawson appeals from a final judgment in the sum of $25,000 for the plaintiff, Lloyd Emil Johnson, Sr.
Johnson sued Dawson and one Pelchat and charged them with negligence resulting in the death of his minor son. His minor son was killed as a result of a collision between a Volkswagen automobile in which he was a passenger and a horse allegedly owned by Pelchat or Dawson. There was a factual dispute at issue as to the ownership of the horse which was resolved by the jury verdict against Dawson.
Although the evidence was conflicting as to the ownership of the horse and the alleged negligence, we find substantial, competent evidence in the record to sustain the jury verdict.
The defendant claims reversible error was committed by the trial judge in permitting expert testimony concerning the pasturing of horses. Trial judges in Florida are given wide latitude in this regard and we find no abuse of discretion in this instance. See Central Hardware Co. v. Stampler, Fla.App. 1965, 180 So.2d 205; and *446State Road Dept. v. Outlaw, Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 741.
We have examined the defendant’s other points for reversal and find no reversible error has been committed.
The final judgment herein appealed is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Dawson, 257 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…reservation of rights. After trial a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for $25,000. The insurance company appealed the judgment on behalf of Dawson. The appeal resulted in an affirmance of the judgment. Dawson v. Johnson, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 445. The judgment creditor thereupon instituted garnishment proceeding against the insurance company for the collection of the judgment. The insurance company denied that it was liable for the judgment rendered against Dawson, its policy holder. It den…
Authorities Cited
- Cent. Hardware Co. v. Sydelle Stampler, 180 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Outlaw, 148 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)