SUZANNE SALOMON AND ALAN SALOMON, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEM, INC., A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to excuse a prospective juror for cause, permitting an investigating officer to give an opinion, or denying a motion for a directed verdict.
Plaintiffs were injured in an automobile accident and sued the owner of the other vehicle. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.…
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 Record On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff, Suzanne Salomon, was allegedly injured in an automobile accident. She and her husband Alan sued the owner of the automobile which collided with the car in which she was riding as a passenger.
The jury verdict was adverse to plaintiffs and they appeal from the final judgment and denial of certain post trial motions. These appeals have been consolidated.
Plaintiffs’ first point is that the court erred in denying their motion to excuse a prospective juror for cause thereby requiring them to use one of their peremptory challenges. We have reviewed the testimony of this juror and find no abuse of sound judicial discretion by the trial judge in the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to excuse the prospective juror for cause.
Plaintiffs claim error in the trial court permitting the investigating officer, who was not an eye-witness, to give an opinion that the car in which plaintiff was riding as a passenger was backing up prior to the accident. Cf. Delta Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Rihl, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 469.
The trial judge ruled that the officer was an expert in investigating accidents and could make reasonable deductions from what he observed. No objection was made to the ruling that the officer was an expert and it may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Upchurch v. Mizell, 50 Fla. 456, 40 So. 29 (1905); and Worcester Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Eisenberg, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 575.
*102Plaintiffs’ point that the court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the case has been examined and found insufficient because the testimony of the plaintiff is not included in the record on appeal. Brown v. Householder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 801.
We have examined plaintiffs’ final point for reversal and find it to be insufficient to require reversal.
The final judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sponholtz v. The Est. OF Ivan Erling Sponholtz, 468 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…eviewable point, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the testimony of the estate’s expert witness where the wife did not object to the qualifications of the expert, see Salomon v. National Car Rental System, Inc., 247 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), or offer testimony to contradict the expert’s opinion as to the present value of her claim. See Moving v. Levy, 452 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Mrs. Sponholtz’ second point, based on a claimed entitlement to an increase in…
-
Farrell v. Republic OF Colombia, 589 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ken on the subject motion before a different trial judge. The defendants made no objection below to the introduction of the subject transcript and thus have not preserved the point for appellate review, see Salomon v. National Car Rental Sys., Inc., 247 So. 2d 101, 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Thrifty Super Mkt., Inc. v. Kitchener, 227 So. 2d 500, 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Moreover, the transcript of the prior hearing was admissible in any event. See Habig v. Bastían, 117 Fla. 864, 158 So. 508 (1935); Johns-Manville…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. Householder, 134 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Upchurch v. Jackson Mizell and William Mizell, 50 Fla. 456 (Fla. 1905)
- Worcester Mut. Fire Ins. Co. & Sec. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Eisenberg, 147 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- DELTA Rent-A-Dar, Inc. v. Rihl, 218 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)