BILL CURRIE FORD, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JOYCE CASH, APPELLEE, AND WILLIAM WESLEY THOMAS AND TAMPA SAND AND MATERIAL CO., DEFENDANTS/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.
Florida appellate court affirmed exclusion of settlement agreement between plaintiff and one defendant from jury trial, holding that such evidence is properly excluded to protect the settling defendant from prejudice and to encourage out-of-court dispute resolution.
A trial court properly excludes a settlement agreement between a plaintiff and one of multiple defendants from jury consideration to prevent prejudice to the settling defendant and to promote settlement of disputes.
[1] A settlement agreement between a plaintiff and one of multiple defendants is properly excluded from jury evidence to prevent prejudice to the settling defendant and to en…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The jury's function is to determine damages and to do so without the introduction of prejudicial elements.”
Court explaining the proper role of the jury and the rationale for excluding settlement agreements.
A plaintiff settled with one of two independent tort-feasors before trial. The non-settling defendant sought to introduce the settlement agreement bef…
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 Dispute Resolution cases and more on FLexlaw
In Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., Fla.App.2d 1967, 202 So.2d 8, this court upheld a settlement agreement between a plaintiff and one of two independently acting tort-feasors, both of which participate in the trial and the liability of one of which is variable according to the outcome. Here we affirm a trial judge’s sound refusal to allow the non-settling defendant to introduce before the jury the contents of such an agreement. We are not impressed by the argument that cross-examination of medical witnesses was not carried out by the settling defendant’s attorney. Even if that defendant hadn’t settled it could have foregone cross-examination, and the non-*408settling defendant was not restricted in its efforts to keep the verdict to a minimum through cross-examination of the plaintiff’s medical witnesses.
The jury’s function is to determine damages and to do so without the introduction of prejudicial elements. Admission of the settlement agreement would perhaps have aided the non-settling defendant, but would have prejudiced the settling defendant, and was properly excluded. Our law favors the settlement of disputes out of court. Jordan v. Coral Gables, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 38, affirming Coral Gables v. Jordan, Fla.App.3d 1966, 186 So.2d 60.
Affirmed.
PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1973)…th due process, we hold that a new trial must be granted. Wherefore, this cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent herewith. It is so ordered. ROBERTS, Acting C. J., concurs. . 202 So. 2d 8 (Fla.App.2d 1967). . 252 So. 2d 407 (Fla.App.2d 1971). . Section 768.041(2) provides: “At trial if any defendant shows the court that the plaintiff, or any person lawfully on his behalf, has delivered a release or covenant not to sue to any person, firm or corporation in partial sati…
-
Maule Indus., Inc. v. Rountree, 264 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…r consideration for the jury in evaluating the credibility of the testimony of a party to the agreement. A contrary view appears to have been reached by the Second District Court of Appeal in the case of Bill Currie Ford, Inc. v. Cash, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 407. Appellants’ contention that the error prejudicially affected them in the presentation of evidence and in closing arguments before the jury is clearly refuted by the record. Their claim to being hampered in presentation of evidence arose out of the…
-
Charles B. Pitts Real Est., Inc. v. Hater, 602 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…urt did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting evidence of the settlement. As a general rule, offers to compromise a disputed claim are not admissible to prove liability for the claim. § 90.408, Fla.Stat. (1989); see Bill Currie Ford, Inc. v. Cash, 252 So. 2d 407 (Fla.2d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 256 So. 2d 513 (Fla.1972); City of Coral Gables v. Jordan, 186 So. 2d 60 (Fla.3d DCA), aff'd, 191 So. 2d 38 (Fla.1966). Although the settlement in the case between the Haters and FFD was not an offer or settlement i…
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
- Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 202 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- City OF Coral Gables v. Jordan, 186 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Janet v. Jordan and Janet V. Jordan as Administratrix of the Estate of John Ellison Jordan, 191 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1966)