CHANDLER LEASING CORPORATION, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION, COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF MIAMI, A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND HARRISON M. ROSS, JR., APPELLANTS,
v.
ROSINA GIBSON AND NATHAN GIBSON, HER HUSBAND, 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.
A negligence suit brought by Rosina and Nathan Gibson against Chandler Leasing Corporation, Coca Cola Bottling Company of Miami, and Harrison M. Ross, Jr. resulted in a jury verdict for the plaintiffs. The appellants challenged the verdict on three grounds: improper admission of expert rebuttal testimony, excessiveness of the damages award, and exclusion of argument regarding the plaintiff wife's failure to wear a seat belt.
The trial court did not commit reversible error on any of the three issues. The expert rebuttal testimony was properly admitted within the trial judge's sound judicial discretion; the jury verdict was supported by substantial, competent evidence and was not so excessive as to shock the judicial conscience; and the trial court properly excluded argument about the seat belt because defendants failed to plead contributory negligence and Florida law does not permit such argument absent proper pleading.
“in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, could have determined that the questioned testimony was in rebuttal of new matter brought out during the presentation of the evidence of the defendants”
Establishes the standard for reviewing the trial court's discretionary decision to admit expert rebuttal testimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis was a negligence action brought by Rosina Gibson and Nathan Gibson, her husband, against three defendants. A jury rendered a verdict in favor of …
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 Sound Judicial Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants were the defendants below and appeal from a final judgment rendered after a jury verdict for the plaintiffs in a negligence suit.
Defendants claim reversible error was committed by permitting plaintiffs to offer testimony of an expert witness that did not rebut any new matter brought out during the presentation of the evidence for the defendants.
We have carefully reviewed the record and find that the trial judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, could have determined that the questioned testimony was in rebuttal of new matter brought out during the presentation of the evidence of the defendants. We find no abuse of sound judicial discretion by the trial judge in this claim for reversal. See Driscoll v. Morris, Fla.App.19S9, 114 So. 2d 314.
Defendant’s second point is that the trial court erred in denying a motion for new trial or remittitur because the award to the husband, Nathan Gibson, was so excessive that it had to be based upon passion, prejudice or a total disregard of the evidence and should shock the judicial conscience.
Plaintiffs concede that the verdict of Seventy-Eight Thousand Dollars was a “good verdict for the plaintiff husband” but argue that no passion, prejudice or sympathy on the part of the jury has been demonstrated and that there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to sustain the verdict.
Without detailing the testimony and evidence we find that the jury verdict and final judgment for the plaintiff husband were supported by substantial, competent evidence and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial, or remittitur. See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Robinson, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 406; Breeding’s Dania Drug Co. v. Runyon, 1941, 147 Fla. 123, 2 So.2d 376; Talcott v. Holl, Fla.App. 1969, 224 So.2d 420; and Bach v. Miami Transit Co., Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 706, cert. denied, Fla.1961, 133 So.2d 322.
Finally, defendants seek reversal because the trial judge would not permit argument to the jury on the failure of the plaintiff wife to have the seat belt in the car secured around her body.
In the instant case, defendants did not plead contributory negligence and did not seek any instructions on the issue of contributory negligence as a result of the failure of the plaintiff wife to have the seat belt fastened around her body. Even if defendants had properly attempted to raise this as an issue, they would have been faced with the opinion and decision of Brown v. Kendrick, Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 49. Under the authority of Brown, supra, there was no error committed by the trial judge in this regard.
The final judgment herein appealed is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ins. Co. OF N. Am. & John Menninger v. Pasakarnis, 451 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1984)…case was decided, the First District felt that the issue of the “seat belt defense” was one for the legislature rather than the courts to resolve. See also Paschal v. Pinkard, 228 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969). In Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Gibson, 227 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), defendants sought reversal of a judgment on the basis that the trial judge had erred in not permitting argument to the jury on the failure of plaintiff to fasten her seat belt. Finding that defendants did not plead contributory n…
-
Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp., 693 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1996)…978) (refusing to rule on seat belt defense issue because record did not contain sufficient evidence that plaintiff would have sustained less serious injuries had he been wearing his seat belt at time of collision); Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Gibson, 227 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (holding where contributory negligence was not pleaded and no instructions on issue of contributory negligence in failing to use seat belt were requested, refusal of trial judge to permit argument to jury on failure of plaint…
-
Ins. Co. OF N. Am. & John Menninger v. Pasakarnis, 425 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…undisputed, however, that the defendant simply ran the stop sign, the admission of the evidence, if arguendo error at all, could have been no more than harmless. . Other Florida cases which discuss the subject are Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Gibson, 227 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), which noted that the issue had not been raised in the pleadings (and pointed out that the defendants would have been met with the Kendrick holding if it had), and Quinn v. Millard, 358 So. 2d 1378, 1384-85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), whe…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Robinson, 68 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1953)
- Breeding's Dania Drug Co. v. Elbert Allen Runyon, 147 Fla. 123 (Fla. 1941)
- Driscoll v. Morris, 114 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Talcott v. Holl, 224 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Bach v. Miami Transit Co., 129 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Terry v. Sec. Inv. Co., Inc., 192 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Fleischer v. Schoenrock, 133 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1961)
- Williams v. McCOMBS, 133 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1961)