RADIANT OIL COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CATHERINE JEAN HERRING, A MINOR, BY HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, GENE HERRING, DEFENDANT IN ERROR; RADIANT OIL COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. GENE HERRING, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 consolidated appeal, the Florida Supreme Court addressed whether a six-year-old child was competent to testify and whether the trial court properly granted a new trial on the ground of inadequate damages in a personal injury case. The Court held that age-based competency rules have been abandoned in Florida, and that motions for new trial based on inadequate damages must be supported by specific grounds, not mere general allegations.
The Court held that Florida law does not apply an arbitrary age-based test for witness competency; instead, the trial court may permit testimony if the witness demonstrates sufficient intelligence regarding the sanctity of an oath and general affairs. On the inadequacy issue, the Court held that motions for new trial based on inadequate damages must be grounded on specific grounds such as prejudice, passion, misconception of law or evidence, or failure to consider proper damage elements—general allegations are insufficient.
“not an arbitrary age but the degree of intelligence one exemplifies as to the sanctity of an Oath and as to affairs generally is the test by which he will be permitted to testify”
Establishes Florida's modern rule abandoning age-based competency requirements for witnesses in favor of a discretionary intelligence-based test
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCatherine Jean Herring, age six, was injured by a truck belonging to Radiant Oil Company while playing in an alley in West Palm Beach. She recovered a…
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 Child Witness Competency cases and more on FLexlaw
Catherine Jean Herring, a child of six years old, was injured by a truck of Radiant Oil Company while playing in an alley in West Palm Beach near where the truck was servicing a fueling plant for a bakery. She brought a common law action for damages and recovered a verdict for one thousand dollars. Pier father, Gene Pierring, brought a common law action against the same defendant to recover for loss of services of his child and for- medical expenses and recovered a verdict of $1,767.05, the exact-amount claimed and shown to have been incurred for medical expenses-. No loss of services was proven.
The issues in each case were tried and verdicts were rendered by the same jury. A joint bill of exceptions was settled, writs of error were taken by the defendant in both 'cases, and they were consolidated and argued together in this Court. In the case of Gene Herring, the writ of error is to a final judgment on the verdict while in the case of Catherine Jean Pierring, the writ of error was to an order granting a new trial because of inadequacy of the verdict, the new trial being limited to the question of damages only.
The same grounds are urged for reversal in both cases. It is first contended that an unschooled child six years of age is incapable of appreciating the significance of an oath and, being so, it was error to permit her to testify in the case.
It is quite true that under the common law a person under fourteen years of age was not considered a competent witness in any controverted matter but in Florida, and we think generally, that rule has been abandoned and that not an arbitrary age but the degree of intelligence one exemplifies as to the sanctity of an Oath and as to affairs generally is the test by which lie will be permitted to testify. Such a *157test is a matter for determination by the trial court and there is no showing that his discretion was' abused.
Should the trial court have granted the motion for new-trial for inadequacy of damages predicated on no specific ground but on general allegations?-
It has been held that under the old ’ common law rulé, a motion for new trial for inadequacy of damages should not be granted but the general rule now seems to be that á verdict for grossly inadequate damages stands on the same ground as a verdict for excessive or extravagant damages and that a new trial may as readily be granted in one case as the other. Such verdicts will not bé set aside for the mere reason that they are less than the Court thinks they should be. It must be shown that tlm verdict was induced by prejudice or passion, some misconception of the law or the evidence or it must be shown that the jury did not consider all the elements of damage involved, missed a consideration of the issues submitted or failed to discharge their duty as given them by the court’s charge. 20 R. C. L. 283.
Motions for new trial for inadequacy of verdict should be made on one or all these grounds:; otherwise they will not stand. The motion in this case appears to have been granted on the ground that the jury did not consider the proper elements of damage though the record is not clear on the point. We think, however, that the court erred in limiting the new trial to the amount of damages in the one case. The two cases were so closely related' and infected by a mutual dependence and were properly tried together. It they are to be tried again, they should be tried under thé same circumstances as before.
The judgment is accordingly reversed and a new trial awarded. ... .
Reversed.
*158Brown, C. J., Whitfield and Ci-iapman, J. J., concur.
Buford and Adam's, J. J., concur specially.
Thomas, J., dissents.
(concurring specially).- — I concur in the judgment of reversal because it is my opinion that the evidence is insufficient to establish any actionable negligence on the part of defendant’s agent or servant.
As I read the record it shows that an unfortunate accident occurred when a little child out of the range of vision of the driver of an automobile truck moved voluntarily from a place of safety to a place of danger in front of the rear wheels of the truck just as the driver, using all reasonable care, put the truck slowly in forward motion in a lawful and careful manner.
Adams, J., concurs.
(dissenting). — I think the judgment should be affirmed.
Buford, J.
(concurring specially).- — I concur in the judgment of reversal because it is my opinion that the evidence is insufficient to establish any actionable negligence on the part of defendant’s agent or servant.
As I read the record it shows that an unfortunate accident occurred when a little child out of the range of vision of the driver of an automobile truck moved voluntarily from a place of safety to a place of danger in front of the rear wheels of the truck just as the driver, using all reasonable care, put the truck slowly in forward motion in a lawful and careful manner. Adams, J., concurs.
Thomas, J.
(dissenting). — I think the judgment should be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (47 total)
-
Chirogianis v. Anderson, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1981)…dt v. Tracey, 150 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963), cert. denied, 159 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1964). A closer review of the record, however, discloses that the district court followed the tests authorizing a new trial enunciated in Radiant Oil Co. v. Herring, 146 Fla. 154, 200 So. 376 (Fla. 1941), as supplemented in Short v. Grossman, 245 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1971), and Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1969). We therefore discharge the writ. It is so ordered. SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and ENGLAN…
-
Castlewood Int'l Corp. v. LaFLEUR, 322 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1975)…6 Fla. 484, 1 So. 2d 476 (1941); Woods v. State, 154 Fla. 203, 17 So. 2d 112 (1944); evidentiary matters, such as scope of cross-examination, Dabney v. Yapa, 187 So. 2d 381 (Fla.App.3d 1966); and, competency of witnesses, Radiant Oil Co. v. Herring, 146 Fla. 154, 200 So. 376 (1941); motion for mistrial, Wirt v. Fraser, 158 Fla. 777, 30 So. 2d 174 (1947); motion for new trial, Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959). . Grant v. Corbitt, 95 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1957). . State v. Frear, 155 Fla. 479, 20 So. 2d…
-
Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1964)…n the evidence before it in finding that plaintiffs were not entitled to recover at least the amount of medical expenses * * (E.S.) The question of adequacy or inadequacy of damages is governed by this court’s decision in Radiant Oil Co. v. Herring, 146 Fla. 154, 200 So. 376, wherein we said: “It has been held that under the old common law rule, a motion for new trial for inadequacy of damages should not be granted but the general rule now seems to be that a verdict for grossly inadequate damages stands on…
Previewing 3 of 47 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence