ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PHILLIP J. MUSCATO ET UX., ET AL., 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 reversed a jury verdict for negligent operation of a parade float and remanded for a new trial limited to liability after finding that the trial court erred in denying a mistrial when the plaintiff's attorney repeatedly and improperly questioned the defendant driver about receiving a traffic citation.
The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial limited to the issue of liability, holding that the improper questioning about a traffic citation constituted prejudicial error warranting a mistrial, as jury instructions to disregard could not erase the prejudicial effect.
[1] Inquiries into whether a party received a traffic citation after an accident constitute prejudicial error and warrant granting a mistrial.
[2] A trial court's instructions to a jury to disregard improper allusions to a traffic citation cannot erase the prejudicial effect from the jury's consideration of liabilit…
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“such questions alluded to above will constitute prejudicial error and warrant granting of a mistrial. The trial court's instructions to the jury to disregard the allusions to a traffic citation could not possibly erase the effect of the prejudicial questions from the mind of the jury in their consideration of liability.”
Establishes the legal standard that improper questions about traffic citations are prejudicial error that cannot be cured by jury instructions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 6, 1971, Phillip Muscato was a passenger on a parade float owned by the Lockhart Lions Club and driven by Truby Dennison. While traveling …
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 Mistrial cases and more on FLexlaw
CROSS, Judge.
Appellants-defendants, Royal Indemnity Company, Lockhart Lions Club, and Truby Dennison, appeal a final judgment entered in favor of the appellees-plaintiffs, Phillip Muscato and Mary Ann Muscato his wife, in a cause of action seeking damages for the negligent operation of a parade float. We reverse. On February 6, 1971, the plaintiff, Phillip Muscato, was a passenger on a parade float owned by the Lockhart Lions Club and driven by Truby Dennison. While on the way to a parade site, a vehicle in front of the float applied its brakes. The float struck the braking vehicle. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff suffered serious leg injuries.
Suit was subsequently instituted by the plaintiffs against Truby Dennison, State Farm Insurance Company (Dennison’s insurer), the Lockhart Lions Club, and Royal Indemnity Company (Lions Club’s insurer). The case proceeded to trial on the merits. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and assessed damages at $52,000 for Phillip Muscato and $500 for Mary Ann Muscato. Final judgment was entered pursuant to the jury verdict against Truby Dennison, the Lockhart Lions Club, and Royal Indemnity Company. It is from this final judgment that these defendants appeal.
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when the plaintiffs’ attorney repeatedly inquired into whether the driver of the float, Truby Dennison, had received a traffic citation after the accident in question.
During the course of the trial plaintiffs’ attorney asked Vivían Abel, a passenger on the float, whether Dennison was charged with any traffic violation. The defendants’ counsel moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion and instructed the jury to strike from consideration the statement of the plaintiffs’ attorney pertaining to a traffic violation.
Thereafter, plaintiffs’ attorney asked the driver of the float, Truby Dennison, whether he had received a traffic citation as a result of the accident. Counsel for the defendants immediately objected to the question. The trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the reference to a traffic citation. Again the attorney for the plaintiff asked Dennison whether he had received a traffic citation. The court admonished the plaintiffs’ counsel for pursuing this improper line of questioning but denied a motion for a mistrial made by the defendant.
The law is well settled that such questions alluded to above will constitute prejudicial error and warrant granting of a mistrial. The trial court’s instructions to the jury to disregard the allusions to a traffic citation could not possibly erase the effect of the prejudicial questions from the mind of the jury in their consideration of liability. Eggers v. Phillips Hardware, 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1956); Riedel v. Driscoll, 124 So. 2d 42 (Fla.App.1960); Volk v. Goetz, 206 So. 2d 250 (Fla.App.1967); Walton v. Robert E. Haas Construction Corp., 259 So. 2d 731 (Fla.App.1972).
While we conclude that the improper line of questioning by the plaintiffs’ attorney requires that the defendants be granted a new trial, we feel that such trial should be limited to the question of liability. It is apparent from the record that Mr. Muscato sustained serious and permanent injuries as a result of the accident. A substantial amount of expert medical and lay testimony relating to the nature and extent of the injuries was adduced at trial, all of which justifies the amount of damages awarded by the jury verdict. The improprieties of the plaintiffs’ counsel had no material effect on the amount of damages awarded by the jury. We believe a new trial limited to the issue of liability is proper and would not cause confusion, inconvenience, or prejudice to the rights of any party. See Larrabee v. Capeletti Bros., Inc., 158 So. 2d 540 (Fla.App.1963); Eggers v. Narron, 254 So. 2d 382 (Fla.App.1971), cert. dismissed, 263 So. 2d 213 (Fla.1972).
We have considered all remaining points raised on appeal by the several parties and determine them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial limited solely to the issue of liability of the respective defendants for plaintiffs’ damages, the extent of which damages has been determined.
Reversed and remanded.
DOWNEY, J., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Moore v. Taylor Concrete & Supply Co., Inc., 553 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…arrant a new trial. Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Co., 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1956); Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Johnson, 466 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Riedel v. Driscoll, 124 So. 2d 42, 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960); Royal Indemnity Co. v. Muscato, 305 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. denied, 321 So. 2d 76 (Fla.1975); Walton v. Robert E. Haas Construction Corp., 259 So. 2d 731, 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 265 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1972); Volk v. Goetz, 206 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). See also Ma…
-
Budget Rent A CAR Sys., Inc. v. Jana, 600 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…remedy. We agree. It is clear that questions to a party or a witness, propounded by an adverse party, about whether traffic citations were issued will require that a mistrial be granted or that there be reversal on appeal. Royal Indem. v. Muscato, 305 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. denied, 321 So. 2d 76 (Fla.1975); Albertson v. Stark, 294 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 299 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1974). We do not agree with the appellees that the directed verdict in their favor as to negligence…1 / 2
-
Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Johnson, 466 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…sider or discuss the question and answer. . Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Company, 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1956); Riedel v. Driscoll, 124 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960); Volk v. Goetz, 206 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Royal Indemnity Company v. Muscato, 305 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). . The tentative ruling which the trial court adopted as its final ruling is found in the court’s Exhibit "A”, entitled “MEMORANDUM RE: Motion in Limine Hearing,” and states, inter alia: At the hearing held on plaintiff’s motio…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Co., 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1956)
- Clark v. Hofacker, 124 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Walton v. Robert E. Haas Constr. Corp., 259 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Volk v. Goetz, 206 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Jeffrey's, Inc. v. Rests., Inc., 158 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Larrabee v. Capeletti Bros., Inc., 158 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Miclay v. Japanese Steak House, Inc., 254 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Eggers v. Narron, 254 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Narron v. Eggers, 263 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1972)