DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND JAMES CHINA, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN A. CLARSON, 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.
A passenger injured in a Dade County bus accident recovered a judgment against the County. The appellate court reversed because the jury improperly heard testimony about the County's settlement with another passenger in the same accident, which violates public policy favoring settlement confidentiality, and cautionary instructions did not cure the prejudicial effect.
Testimony regarding a defendant's settlement of a third party's claim from the same accident is inadmissible and constitutes prejudicial error. Cautionary jury instructions do not cure the prejudicial effect of such testimony, and a new trial is required.
[1] Evidence of a defendant's settlement of a third party's claim arising from the same accident is generally inadmissible in a subsequent trial against the defendant.
[2] The public policy favoring compromises and settlements requires that evidence of such settlements not be admitted to prove liability.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“under the facts of this cause the decision of the majority of the district court holding that it was prejudicial error to allow the submission of evidence of a settlement by defendant of the claim of a third party in the same accident is correct.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that settlement evidence involving third parties in the same accident is prejudicial error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA plaintiff was a passenger in a Dade County bus. During her negligent operation lawsuit, another passenger testified that the County had settled her …
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 Public Policy Favoring Settlement cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff-appellee was a passenger in a bus owned by defendant-appellant, Dade County. In her personal injury suit for negligent operation of the bus, final judgment was entered in her favor, and Dade County appeals.
The County claims reversible error was committed when certain testimony of compromise and settlement of claims arising out of the accident was heard by the jury trying the cause. We agree and reverse.
Another passenger testified that she was involved in the same accident and that the County had settled her case. The defendant objected to the testimony and the objection was sustained by the trial judge with an instruction to the jury to disregard such testimony. Later in the trial a former county investigator testified that during settlement negotiations he admitted to plaintiff that the County and driver were liable and that the driver had made false statements to him about the accident. The trial court first admitted such testimony, but later struck it and gave an instruction to the jury to disregard such testimony.
The case of Jordan v. City of Coral Gables, Fla., 191 So.2d 38, affirming Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 60, is controlling. The Supreme Court said, at p. 38:
“ * * * under the facts of this cause the decision of the majority of the district court holding that it was prejudicial error to allow the submission of evidence of a settlement by defendant of the claim of a third party in the same accident is correct. (Emphasis supplied.)
We note that this Court in City of Coral Gables v. Jordan, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 60, at 63, affirmed 191 So.2d 38, specifically determined, because the public policy favoring compromises and settlements was so strong, that:
“ * * * the trial judge erroneously held that the [defendant-] appellant had opened the door and rendered the evidence of settlement admissible.” (Emphasis supplied.)
It is our view that the cautionary instructions did not cure the prejudicial effect of such testimony. Carls Market v. Meyer, Fla., 69 So.2d 789; Pensacola Transit Co. v. Denton, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 296; Crowell v. Fink, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 766, 768-769; Seminole Shell Co. v. Clearwater Flying Co., Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 543; and see McCormick on Evidence (1954 Ed.) § 77, p. 158.
The jury determination as to liability and damages, under these circumstances, was not reached in a laboratory atmosphere uncontaminated with matters that public policy1 requires the jury not to consider. See Deese v. White Belt Dairy Farms, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 543. A new trial as to all issues is therefore necessary. Accordingly the judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial as to liability and damages.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marks v. Delcastillo, 386 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…at a new trial should be granted because of the admission of parts of the depositions of Mr. and Mrs. McCord which indicated that they had satisfactorily settled their own claims for damages arising out of the explosion. See, Dade County v. Clarson, 240 So. 2d 828 (Fla.3d DCA 1970); City of Coral Gables v. Jordan, 186 So. 2d 60 (Fla.3d DCA 1966), aff’d, 191 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1966); but see Compania Dominicana de Aviacion v. Knapp, 251 So. 2d 18 (Fla.3d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 256 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1971). We do not…
-
Compania Dominicana de Aviacion & Underwriters at Lloyds v. Knapp, 251 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…ndant insurance company had paid for damages to the witness’ cars. The defendants argue that the rule pronounced in City of Coral Gables v. Jordan, Fla.App. 1966, 186 So. 2d 60, affd, Fla.1966, 191 So. 2d 38 and Dade County v. Clarson, Fla.App.1970, 240 So. 2d 828 was violated. See also § 768.041, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. (formerly § 54.28, Fla.Stat.1965). We hold that the trial court did not err in failing to grant a mistrial or a new trial. During the trial in chief the manager of a used car lot was called by pla…1 / 2
-
Simmons v. Baptist Hosp. OF Miami, Inc., 454 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ither cured the sinister nature of the error complained of nor constituted a waiver of the error by the plaintiff. See Carls Markets, Inc. v. Meyer, 69 So. 2d 789, 794 (Fla.1953); Perper v. Edell, 44 So. 2d 78, 80 (Fla.1949); Dade County v. Clarson, 240 So. 2d 828, 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). The judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.…
Authorities Cited
- Carls Mkts., Inc. v. Meyer, 69 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1953)
- Ryan v. Roscoe Noble, 95 Fla. 830 (Fla. 1928)
- Beta ETA House Corp. v. Gregory, 230 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Deese v. White Belt Dairy Farms, Inc., 160 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Pensacola Transit Co., Inc. v. Denton, 119 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- City OF Coral Gables v. Jordan, 186 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Seminole Shell Co., Inc. v. Clearwater Flying Co., Inc., 156 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Janet v. Jordan and Janet V. Jordan as Administratrix of the Estate of John Ellison Jordan, 191 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1966)
- Applebaum v. Leila Applebaum, 135 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)