Andrews v. Cardosa
| Decision Date | 18 September 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 97 So.2d 43 |
| Parties | Iva J. ANDREWS and Harry J. Andrews, Appellants, v. Jesus CARDOSA and Neal M. Cardosa, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Brown, Brown & Corcoran, Tampa, and Buckley & Bland, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellants.
MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, C. F. Clark, Tampa, for appellees.
This appeal is to review a final judgment for the appellants, who were plaintiffs below, low, entered by the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. The plaintiffs sued the defendants, appellees here, for damages resulting from a collision between an automobile owned and operated by appellant, Iva J. Andrews, and in which she and her husband, Harry J. Andrews, were riding, and a truck owned by appellees. The appellee's Answer denied negligence and averred contributory negligence, but at the trial appellees admitted liability and the sole question became the amount of the damages to the plaintiffs.
The jury returned a verdict of $2,000 for appellant, Iva J. Andrews, and $500 for her husband, appellant, Harry J. Andrews. Judgment was entered on the verdict and the appellants moved for a new trial on the following grounds:
The verdict is contrary to the evidence in that it is grossly inadequate; the trial judge erred in denying appellants' counsel the right to make an opening statement to the jury at the beginning of the trial (confined him to reading complaint); the trial judge erred in denying appellants permission to use a blackboard for the purpose of illustrating their final argument to the jury; the trial judge erred in denying appellants permission, at the time of their final argument, to have the jury supplied with paper and pencils for making notes; the trial judge erred in making remarks allegedly critical of appellants' out-of-town counsel to the effect that things were not done in said court as he was doing them, and the trial judge erred in refusing to permit appellants to present rebuttal testimony.
The motion for a new trial was denied and this appeal followed, appellants assigning as error the denial of their motion for a new trial.
This court is of the opinion that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.
Two questions arise on this appeal: 1. Was the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs grossly inadequate? 2. Did the lower court err from a procedural standpoint in denying appellants the right to make an opening statement, the right to use rebuttal testimony, the use of a blackboard, paper and pencils for the jury, and in remarking to the attorney for the plaintiff that 'you may try law suits that way on the lower East Coast but we don't do that way over here'?
The remarks of the trial judge above referred to were evidently based on the request of plaintiff's counsel, who were from Ft. Lauderdale, for permission to use a blackboard, to give the jurors pencils and paper, to use a medical chart, and for other procedural privileges. We cannot say from the record in this case the such remarks constituted prejudicial error.
The denial of the court to permit the plaintiffs to use a witness in rebuttal cannot be held and error in view of the minutes of the court which show that both the plaintiffs and the defendants had rested their case the previous day of trial and no proffer of the evidence which the plaintiffs desired to put in the record was made. Therefore, it is impossible for this court to determine whether the refusal of the lower cour...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harper v. Bolton
...discretion of the trial judge. Johnson v. Life Insurance Co. of Georgia, 227 S.C. 351, 88 S.E.2d 260, 55 A.L.R.2d 813; Andrews v. Cardosa, Fla.App., 97 So.2d 43; Miller v. Loy, 101 Ohio App. 405, 140 N.E.2d 38.' Pain and suffering is recognized by the Courts of this State as a very material......
-
Ratner v. Arrington
...illustrate or aid in an argument was recognized, indirectly, by the district court of appeal in the second district in Andrews v. Cardosa, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 43, 45, where the court held that it was within a trial judge's discretion to deny the use of such an item, 'The denial by the tr......
-
Jaar v. University of Miami
...matters for that of the jury. As stated by Judge Allen, speaking for the Second District Court of Appeal in Andrews v. Cardosa [97 So.2d 43 (Fla.App. 2d, 1957) ]: '... The test is not what an Appellate Court would have decided had they tried the case, but whether or not they can say, after ......
-
Miller v. James, 6330
...facts upon the controverted issues in the trial Court. Such issues include adequacy of the amount awarded in the verdict. Andrews v. Cardosa, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 43; Wise v. Jacksonville Gas Corp., Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 704; ReMark Chemical Co. v. Ross, Fla.App.1958,101 So.2d 163; McNul......