DANIEL
v.
ROGERS
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict of $35,000 in an automobile collision case, holding that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence and arguments about the defendants' lack of insurance.
No, the trial court did not err. The exclusion of evidence and arguments about the non-existence of insurance was proper as it was irrelevant. The limitation of argument time was within the trial judge's discretion, which was not abused.
“The evidence is ample to support the verdict.”
Establishes the court's finding that the jury's factual determination was supported by the evidence presented.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an automobile collision resulting in a jury verdict of $35,000 in damages for the plaintiff. The defendants appealed, arguing that t…
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.
MILLEDGE, Associate Justice.
This appeal-is: from a "judgment based on a jury verdict of $35,000 for damages sustained in an automobile ‘ collision. The credibility of-witnesses and the weight of the evidence-are jury ‘[questions. The evidence is ample to support the verdict. The appellants complain that counsel -were limited to ‘45 minutes each in final' argument to the jury. This is a matter within the •’discretion of the trial judge, and hé did not' abuse his discretion. ' The trial judge is .to be commended for exercising a-firm control of the-trial. <
The only, question presented which merits even a brief discussion concerns insurance. Apparently the' defendants carried no insurance and they tried ^t several points to present this to the. jury beginning' with questions on the voir dire. The ' trial judge consistently refused to permit this. Several of the refused requested charges told the jury that’ the question of insurance was irrelevant and should be disregarded. In other words, the defendants’ counsel recognized that th'e subject of -insurance was irrelevant. He wished to set up a straw man and then knock, him down, The trial.: judge was right in excluding this irrelevancy from the beginning. The reason the subject is worth mentioning at all is to point .out that this case decides'no'more* than the facts justify — that to exclude as irrelevant the fact of the non-existence of insurance is not error. Whether it is error and, if so, under what circumstances, to permit a defendant to show that he is not indemnified by insurance, is not here decided.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Madonna Potock v. Samuel L. Turek, M.D., 227 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…mited the time; but even if he did it does not appear that this would be an abuse of discretion. Generally, the manner of conducting a trial and the time for closing argument lies within the discretion of the trial judge. Daniel v. Rogers, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 391; 32 Fla.Jur., Trial, § 116; Anno. 3 A.L.R.3rd 1341. Thirdly, the appellant contends the trial judge erred in giving the following instruction: “Physicians are not held liable under the law for honest errors of judgment. They are allowed a wide ran…
-
Woodham v. ROY, 471 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…The fact that this is a civil proceeding does not mean that justice can be administered arbitrarily with a stopwatch. On the contrary, the rule of informed discretion announced in May v. State, supra, applies with equal force. See Daniel v. Rogers, 72 So. 2d 391 (Fla.1954); Potock v. Turek, 227 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), cert. dismissed, 238 So. 2d 106 (Fla.1970). In establishing the appropriate time limitation for closing argument, the court should consider the following factors: length of trial, numbe…
-
Curley v. Miami Transit Co., Inc., 141 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…ecord does not preclude a jury of reasonable men from deciding otherwise. The plaintiff’s evidence was uncontradicted at the close of his case. Even if contradicted, the weight of the evidence is exclusively for the jury. Daniel v. Rogers, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 391; Goff v. Miami Transit Company, Fla.1955, 77 So. 2d 636; Massaline v. Rich, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 10. Having undertaken the trial the circuit judge erroneously determined that a jury would not believe the plaintiff and his witnesses. Cf. Willsco…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence