NEW ENGLAND OYSTER HOUSE OF NORTH MIAMI, INC. AND HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
PAUL YUHAS AND ANTOINETTE YUHAS, 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 defendants appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to the plaintiffs for negligent maintenance of a parking lot. The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow impeachment of the plaintiff's credibility through evidence that she had understated tips on her income tax return.
The trial court did not err in refusing to allow impeachment through evidence of tax return misstatement. The trial judge properly exercised discretion in determining that the testimonial evidence was too remote to the issues in the case and that credibility impeachment must be within the sound discretion of the trial judge.
[1] A trial court has discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence offered for impeachment.
[2] A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of impeachment evidence will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion that results in prejudice.
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“A ruling by the trial judge on matters pertaining to the reputation for truth and veracity of a plaintiff is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and will not be reversed unless the appellant establishes an abuse thereof which has resulted in prejudice to his case.”
Establishes the standard of review for trial court discretion regarding witness credibility and impeachment evidence
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAntoinette Yuhas was injured when she tripped and fell on a concrete curb in the parking lot of the defendant's restaurant. The jury awarded her $25,0…
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 Veracity cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
This is an appeal by the defendants from an adverse final judgment entered in the trial court pursuant to a jury verdict.
The jury awarded plaintiff, Antoinette Yuhas, $25,000 in damages and her husband, Paul Yuhas, $1,500, upon the plain tiffs’ complaint alleging negligent care and maintenance of a parking lot at the defendant’s (New Englánd Oyster House) place of business. Mrs. Yuhas sustained personal injuries when she tripped and fell on a concrete curb in the parking lot.
The sole point raised by the appellant on this appeal is: whether it is reversible error to refuse to allow defendant to impeach plaintiff’s credibility by using plaintiff’s statement in her deposition that she lied on her income tax return ?
Prior to the commencement of the trial of this case, plaintiffs’ counsel announced to the court he was dropping Mrs. Yuhas’ claim for lost wages. At that point, defendants’ counsel requested the court to permit him to impeach Mrs. Yuhas’ credibility anyway from her deposition in which she stated that she had failed to declare on her tax returns the full value of tips which she earned as a waitress at another restaurant.
The court in response to the request ruled as follows:
“The dropping of the claim for lost wages is acceptable.
“Since that is not an issue of this case, it will be my ruling you cannot impeach on that.”
In our view, the trial judge was correct in this ruling, and appellants’ contention that the testimony in Mrs. Yuhas’ deposition should have been permitted for purposes of impeachment in that “the whole case rested on her [Mrs. Yuhas’] veracity” is without merit.
A ruling by the trial judge on matters pertaining to the reputation for truth and veracity of a plaintiff is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and will not be reversed unless the appellant establishes an abuse thereof which has resulted in prejudice to his case. Pandula v. Fonseca, 1940, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358.
Obviously, the trial judge determined that the testimonial evidence in the deposition which defendants sought to employ to impeach Mrs. Yuhas was too remote to the issue presented in this case. See 35 Fla.Jur. Witnesses § 228.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bruscarino, 982 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…vidence by impeaching her testimony outside the jury’s presence. The court concluded that the evidence related to a collateral issue and was improper impeachment. The court based its holding on New England Oyster House of North Miami, Inc. v. Yuhas, 294 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (holding that impeachment regarding a conflict between the plaintiffs deposition testimony and income tax returns regarding past wages was improper when plaintiff dropped claim for lost wages prior to the trial). After the close…1 / 2
-
Health First, Inc. v. Cataldo, 92 So. 3d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…ve allowed defendant to impeach plaintiff about false statement on employment application regarding discharge from military because plaintiff falsely claimed on application he had no back issues); New England Oyster House of N. Miami, Inc. v. Yuhas, 294 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (holding, in action for injuries sustained by plaintiff when she tripped and fell on concrete curb and where plaintiff dropped claim for lost wages, trial court properly refused to permit defendants to impeach plaintiffs credibili…
-
Scheel v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 353 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…he general exception as to remoteness in time and those convictions of which a witness may have been pardoned. Singleton v. State, 38 Fla. 297, 21 So. 21 (1896); Alford v. State, 47 Fla. 1, 36 So. 436 (1904); New England Oyster House, Inc. v. Yuhas, 294 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). However, in light of the negative answer given from the stand, which the witness knew was false, and his prior testimony upon deposition, we find no error under the circumstances in the complained of ruling by the trial judge. T…
Authorities Cited
- Pandula v. Pinkey Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395 (Fla. 1940)