DAISY M. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN R. PINCOMBE AND H. O. J. NATIONAL LEASING LTD., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Plaintiff Williams appealed a jury verdict in favor of defendants in a negligence action arising from an automobile accident. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of plaintiff's welfare benefits to rebut her testimony about her motivation to return to work, as such evidence was immaterial to the defendant's liability.
The trial court erred in admitting the welfare benefits evidence. Such evidence is immaterial and not a proper consideration for the jury in determining a tortfeasor's liability, and its admission was prejudicial error.
[1] Evidence of welfare benefits received by a plaintiff for her children is immaterial and not a proper consideration for the jury in a tort action.
[2] Admission of evidence concerning collateral benefits received by a plaintiff, unrelated to the tortious act, can be prejudicial error.
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“the presence of benefits inuring to the victim as a result of injuries received from a tortious act is immaterial and not a proper consideration for the jury”
Establishes the legal principle that benefits received by an injured party are irrelevant to determining the defendant's liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 23, 1972, Daisy M. Williams was injured when her automobile was struck by a vehicle owned by H.O.J. Leasing Ltd. and operated by John R. Pinc…
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 Prejudicial Error cases and more on FLexlaw
CROSS, Judge.
Appellant-plaintiff, Daisy M. Williams, appeals a final judgment entered in favor of appellees-defendants, John R. Pincombe and H. O. J. National Leasing, Ltd., in a cause of action seeking damages resulting from an automobile accident. We reverse.
On March 23, 1972, Daisy M. Williams, was injured in an automobile accident when the automobile she was driving was struck by an automobile owned by defendant, H. O. J. Leasing, Ltd., and operated by defendant, John R. Pincombe.
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants. Trial was by jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants, and the trial court entered a final judgment accordingly. It is from this final judgment that the plaintiff appeals.
The sole question for our determination is whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence that the plaintiff had been receiving since 1970 welfare benefits for her children for the purpose of rebutting the plaintiff’s testimony regarding her motivation to return to work.
A similar question was presented to the Third District Court of Appeal in Cook v. Eney, 277 So. 2d 848 (Fla.App.1973), a medical malpractice suit. In Cook, evidence was admitted at trial that social security and workmen’s compensation benefits inured to the injured victim as a result of his injuries for the limited purpose of impeaching testimony concerning the victim’s desire to return to work. Our sister court in Cook determined that the evidence of the victim’s receipt of insurance-type benefits was not material in a liability suit against a tortfeasor and was not a proper consideration for the jury; that such evidence tended to confuse and mislead the jury on the issue of the tortfeasor’s liability and its admission at trial constituted error prejudicial to the victim; and that insofar as the evidence bears on the issue of malingering, our sister court concluded that there generally will be other evidence having more probative value and involving less likelihood of prejudice than the victim’s receipt of insurance-type benefits.
Turning to the instant case, the trial court admitted evidence that the plaintiff, Daisy M. Williams, had been receiving since 1970 welfare benefits for her children for the purpose of impeaching the plaintiff’s testimony regarding her motivation to return to work. As stated in the Cook case, the presence of benefits inuring to the victim as a result of injuries received from a tortious act is immaterial and not a proper consideration for the jury. It certainly follows that benefits inuring to plaintiff’s children and received by plaintiff on behalf of plaintiff’s children is likewise immaterial and not a proper consideration for the jury. Such evidence had the tendency to confuse and mislead the jury on the issue of the defendant’s liability and its admission by the trial court constituted error prejudicial to the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the final judgment entered in favor of the defendants is reversed, and the cause remanded for new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
OWEN, C. J., and DOWNEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Gormley v. GTE Prods. Corp., 587 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1991)…even by repeated instruction), review denied, 426 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1983); Grossman v. Beard, 410 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (reversible error to admit evidence that plaintiff’s hospital bill was paid by workers’ compensation); Williams v. Pincombe, 309 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (reversible error to admit evidence of plaintiff’s receipt of welfare benefits, even for the purpose of impeaching motive to work); Cook v. Eney [*458] (admission of collateral source evidence is reversible error on the issue of…1 / 2
-
Parker v. Hoppock, 695 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…e receipt of a disability pension-(a showing of) receipt of collateral social insurance benefits involves a substantial likelihood of prejudicial impact. Cook, 277 So. 2d at 850 (emphasis supplied). Our court followed Cook in Williams v. Pincombe, 309 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), an automobile accident case that resulted in a defense verdict in the trial court. We found reversible error in the admission of evidence that the plaintiff received welfare benefits for her children where that testimony was off…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ashe, 50 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…d even by repeated instruction), rev. denied, 426 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1983); Grossman v. Beard, 410 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (reversible error to admit evidence that plaintiff’s hospital bill was paid by workers’ compensation); Williams v. Pincombe, 309 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (reversible error to admit evidence of plaintiff’s receipt of welfare benefits, even for the purpose of impeaching motive to work); Cook v. Eney [277 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) ] (admission of collateral [*657] source evidence…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cook v. Irving P. Eney, M.D., 277 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)