WILLIAM EDMUND DEMAUPASSANT AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
BILLIE EVANS, 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 action arising from a motor vehicle collision, the appellants challenged a jury verdict as excessive and raised other procedural issues. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error, but expressed concern about Rule 1.420(a)(1) which allowed the plaintiff to nonsuit co-defendants after closing arguments, leaving only the appellants liable.
The jury verdict was not excessive when viewed in light of the evidence and applicable damage principles. No reversible error occurred in the trial, and the remaining questions raised on appeal lacked merit.
[1] A jury verdict in a personal injury action will not be deemed excessive if supported by the evidence presented on the issue of damages.
[2] A plaintiff may take a voluntary dismissal without court order by stating notice of dismissal on the record during trial at any time before the jury retires.
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“Rule 1.420(a)(1) Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically provides that a non-suit (or voluntary dismissal) may be taken by a plaintiff without order of court by stating on the record during trial a notice of dismissal at any time before retirement of the jury.”
Establishes the procedural rule that allowed plaintiff to dismiss co-defendants unilaterally after closing arguments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff was a passenger in a taxi cab involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by appellant William Edmund DeMaupassant and insured by State Fa…
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 Rebuttal Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Judge.
Consideration of the record on appeal, the briefs and oral argument of respective counsel in this cause fails to convince us that reversible error occurred in the trial of this personal injury action.
The primary issue raised by appellant is that the verdict rendered by the jury is excessive. We must reject that contention when we view the evidence adduced on the issue of damages in light of the principles expounded in this court’s decision in St. Vincent’s Hospital, Incorporated v. Crouch, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 292 So. 2d 405. We also find that the remaining questions raised on this appeal are without merit.
However, we do think that this case raises an issue which should be considered by the Supreme Court of Florida when it next undertakes a revision of the Rules of Civil Procedure. But for the specific provision of Rule 1.420(a)(1) we would be of the view that the judgment in favor of plaintiff here appealed should be reversed.
This case arises out of a collision between a taxi cab in which plaintiff was the passenger and a vehicle driven by appellant William Edmund DeMaupassant and insured by appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Plaintiff initially filed suit against appellants, the taxi company and the cab driver. The case proceeded to trial against all of those defendants. During closing arguments the plaintiff’s attorney as well as the attorneys for the taxi cab company and the cab driver laid the blame for the accident on appellant William Edmund DeMaupassant. Then after the defendants finished their closing arguments, the plaintiff’s attorney, on “rebuttal” announced to the jury and to the trial judge simultaneously that a non-suit was being taken pursuant to the above mentioned rule as to the taxi cab company and as to the taxi driver, thus leaving only appellants to take the brunt of the jury’s decision.
Rule 1.420(a)(1) Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically provides that a non-suit (or voluntary dismissal) may be taken by a plaintiff without order of court by stating on the record during trial a notice of dismissal at any time before retirement of the jury. We cannot be critical of plaintiff’s attorney for taking tactical advantage of the rule. However, as the rule was applied in the case sub judice it is easy to see how an injustice might result. Therefore, although we find it difficult to recommend that this case be reversed on a procedural ground when the rule has clearly been followed, nevertheless we feel that the rule should be changed to prevent voluntary dismissals, without order of court, of co-defendants at the end of a trial after they have had an opportunity to “heap it on” the remaining defendant or defendants.
Being unhappy with the rule above mentioned and discussed, but finding no reversible error, the judgment appealed is
Affirmed.
SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fears v. Muriel Booth Lunsford & the Ins. Co. of N. Am., 314 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1975)…remaining action required by the court contemplated by the rule would be to advise the jury thereof in a jury case.3 Subsequent to the First District’s decision in the instant case, a different panel of the same court held in DeMaupassant v. Evans, 300 So. 2d 313 (Fla.App. 1st 1974), directly contrary to the cause now before us. We hold that the plaintiff’s right to take a nonsuit or voluntary dismissal is absolute. The DeMaupassant v. Evans, supra, decision correctly disposes of the question and is fully co…
-
Hinton v. Iowa Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. & Steve Dellinger, 317 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…t’s decision in Fears was recently quashed by the Supreme Court (Case No. 45,834, opinion filed June 1, 1975). In its Fears opinion, the Supreme Court approved a later decision of the same district court in deMaupassant v. Evans, Fla.App. 1st, 1974, 300 So. 2d 313, which held that under Rule 1.420(a)(1) a plaintiff had a right to take a voluntary dismissal against less than all of the defendants prior to the retirement of the jury. Therefore, even though Rule 1.420(a)(1) still only refers to “actions” rather…
-
Gonzalez v. The Honorable Jack M. Turner, 427 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…risdiction of the court over the still pending action against the other defendant. Hinton v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance Co., 317 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). See Fischer v. Bartberger, 330 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); DeMaupassant v. Evans, 300 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Thus, when Gonzalez announced her voluntary dismissal of Nowak, the case terminated as to Nowak only. Since jurisdiction over Gonzalez vis-a-vis Continental was unaffected by the dismissal of Nowak, the trial court incorrectly d…
Authorities Cited
- ST. Vincent's Hosp. v. Hattie L. Crouch, 292 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)