CARRIE RILEY, LIZZIERENE RILEY POPE, CALVIN EUGENE MCBRYDE AND OOLITE INDUSTRIES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
HATTIE MAE JACKSON, A SINGLE WOMAN, 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.
In this personal injury automobile accident case, a jury awarded plaintiff Hattie Mae Jackson $30,000 against multiple defendants. The defendants appealed, challenging the trial court's evidentiary rulings and denial of their motion for directed verdict, but the appellate court found no reversible error and affirmed the judgment.
The court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or denial of the directed verdict motion. The court held that even assuming arguendo the hearsay evidence was improperly admitted, any error was harmless, and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict.
[1] A trial court's admission of hearsay testimony is harmless error when the court sustains objections to such testimony and instructs the jury to disregard it.
[2] A jury verdict in a personal injury case will be affirmed if there is sufficient factual evidence and reasonable inferences to support the determination of the issues.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Assuming arguendo, that error was committed in admitting the "hearsay" evidence we find it to have been harmless.”
Establishes the court's holding that even if hearsay was improperly admitted, the error does not require reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Jackson was a paying passenger in a car driven by defendant Pope and owned by defendant Riley. A truck owned by Oolite Industries and driven…
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 Hearsay Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
The several defendants appeal from a final judgment based on a jury verdict in the amount of $30,000 for the plaintiff in a personal injury case involving an automobile accident.
Plaintiff, Hattie Mae Jackson, was a paying passenger in a car driven by defendant Pope and owned by defendant Riley. A truck driven by defendant McBryde and owned by defendant Oolite Industries was traveling East in the oncoming traffic lane. The truck made a left hand turn at an intersection in front of the Riley car. The Riley car turned to the left to avoid hitting the truck and collided with a third vehicle traveling directly behind the truck.
An investigating officer arrived at the scene after the accident. At trial he gave his opinion of how the accident occurred. The defendants’ objections to this testimony were sustained. At the close of plaintiff’s case the defendants Oolite and McBryde were permitted over the objection of co-defendants Riley and Pope to read an ordinance to the jury dealing with a driver’s duty to slow down at an intersection under certain circumstances.
*626On appeal, the defendants Oolite Industries and McBryde, claim that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a new trial “in the face of a record replete with hearsay testimony and allusions thereto by counsel for other defendants and counsel for plaintiff”. We have examined the grounds raised in support of this point and observe that the trial judge sustained each of the objections made to the “hearsay” testimony and instructed the jury to disregard any improper references to a third vehicle; i. e. the Oolite truck driven by McBryde. Cf. Powell v. State, 93 Fla. 756, 112 So. 608 (1927); and 23 Fla.Jur. New Trial § 23.
Assuming arguendo, that error was committed in admitting the “hearsay” evidence we find it to have been harmless. See § 59.041, Fla.Stat. F.S.A.; Sea Crest Corporation v. Burley, Fla.1949, 38 So.2d 434; 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal & Error, § 800; and 5A C.J.S. Appeal & Error, § 1716.
Plaintiff, Jackson, argues that defendants Riley and Pope may not raise the denial of their motion for a directed verdict as reversible error in this appeal. See Gulf Heating & Refrigeration Co. v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., Fla.1967, 193 So.2d 4 and 6551 Collins Avenue Corp. v. Millen, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 337. Assuming arguendo, that this point may be raised on appeal we have reviewed the evidence and find no error in the denial of the motion of Riley and Pope for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s case. Cf. Ruth v. Sorensen, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 10. There was sufficient factual evidence and reasonable inferences presented to require a jury to determine the issues involved. See Mullis v. City of Miami, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 174; Katz v. Harrington, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 11; and Stanek v. Houston, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 825.
No error has been clearly demonstrated in the claim of Riley and Pope that the trial judge erroneously permitted their co-defendants to read the Dade County Traffic Ordinance to this jury. See Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, Fla.1952, 55 So.2d 575; and Harvey v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 9.
The final judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Whittler, 584 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…Jerry Whittier from possible dangerous conditions.... We find no error in the trial court’s denial of a mistrial based on its conclusion that this instruction cured the error. Powell v. Goldner, 483 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Riley v. Jackson, 246 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). In two of the three remaining instances in which CSX claims it moved for mistrial, the record bears out CSX’s mere objections. In those instances, the court sustained CSX’s objections and instructed [*586] the jury to disregard…
-
Henderson v. Harsin, 406 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of Martinez v. State, 76 Fla. 159, 79 So. 751 (1918); Wall v. Little, 102 Fla. 1015, 136 So. 676 (1931); Lambert v. Higgins, 63 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1953); and Riley v. Jackson, 246 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).…
-
Hughes v. Canal Ins. Co., 308 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…lative and repetitious to other abundant testimony in the record upon which the jury could find that the appellees’ vehicle was not negligently operated. See, Sea Crest Corporation v. Burley, Fla.1949, 38 So. 2d 434; Riley v. Jackson, Fla.App. 1971, 246 So. 2d 625; Hall v. Haldane, Fla.App.1972, 268 So. 2d 403. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authority cited, the judgment appealed is affirmed. Affirmed. CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge, dissents.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 6551 Collins Ave. Corp. v. Beverlee Millen, 104 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1958)
- Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, 55 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1951)
- Mullis v. City of Miami, 60 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1952)
- Myrtle R. Ruth and her husband v. Sorensen, 104 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1958)
- Gulf Heating & Refrigeration Co., Inc. v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., 193 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1966)
- Powell v. State, 93 Fla. 756 (Fla. 1927)
- Stanek v. Houston, 165 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Sea Crest Corp. v. Burley, 38 So.2d 434 (Fla. 1949)
- Katz v. Harrington, 226 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Harvey v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 136 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)