Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Ganey, 59-513
| Citation | 125 So.2d 576 |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 59-513,59-513 |
| Parties | ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation authorized to do business in Florida, Appellant, v. Ernest GANEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dixon, DeJarnette, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell, Miami, for appellant.
Sams, Anderson, Alper, Meadows & Spencer and Phillip Goldman, Miami, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict for the plaintiff in an action for personal injury. The action was brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq.
Ganey, an employee of the defendant railroad company, while acting as a switchman in defendant's freight yard at Jacksonville, suffered a traumatic amputation of the left leg. The city of Jacksonville is located in Duval County and the suit was instituted in Dade County. The defendant contended that the Dade County circuit court should have refused to accept jurisdiction under the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens. Accordingly, the defendant moved to dismiss; the trial judge denied the motion, indicating that he was without authority to entertain it.
During the course of the trial, the plaintiff testified that he had been convicted of aggravated assault and that he knew this to be a felony. The trial court refused to allow defendant's counsel to question the plaintiff on the length of sentence to show that the plaintiff had been sentenced to a year in prison. Further, the trial court refused to allow defendant's counsel to show that the plaintiff would be fired by the railroad upon affirmance of the conviction and sentence. It was the defendant's position below that this testimony was material and had bearing upon the future earning capacity of the plaintiff. In addition, the trial court sustained the plaintiff's counsel's objection to proffered testimony 'by this witness that on the night in question he and Ganey rode to work and that on the way down Ganey was discussing with him the fact that he was discouraged by the fact that he expected soon to have to start serving his sentence and that he didn't know what was going to happen to his wife and family; that he was going to lose everything he had, including his job, and that he was in a despondent frame of mind.'
All of the issues were presented to the jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $100,000. Defendant's motion for new trial was denied and judgment was entered upon the verdict.
The appellant has presented seven points in its brief upon which it bases its argument for reversal. By its first point, appellant argues that the trial judge erred in refusing to consider a motion to change jurisdiction of the cause under the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens. Secondly, it is contended that the court erred in excluding testimony offered to show that the plaintiff had been sentenced to a year in prison and that he would be fired upon affirmance of this conviction and sentence. Thirdly, it is contended that the court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the definition of a felony. The appellant's fourth contention is that the court erred in excluding testimony relating to the plaintiff's state of mind on the night of the accident; fifth, that the court erred in giving a certain charge to the jury; sixth, that the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial; and seventh, that the verdict is excessive.
Clearly, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, the plaintiff has a choice of placing venue where the defendant resides, where the cause of action arose or where the defendant is doing business at the time the action is commenced. 1 However, since the enactment of § 1404(a) Title 28 U.S.C.A., a defendant in Federal Court may obtain a transfer of the action under the principle of forum non conveniens embodied therein. See Ex parte Collet, 337 U.S. 55, 69 S.Ct. 944, 93 L.Ed. 1207. The appellant here has conceded that venue was proper in this case and our research has not disclosed, nor has the appellant informed us of any Florida statute granting the power to transfer or dismiss a cause of action for considerations involving trial convenience. The Supreme Court of the United States has indicated 2 that in FELA cases brought in state courts, as is the instant case, the defendant may invoke the doctrine only if the state generally applies the doctrine as part of the local law.
In Greyhound Corporation v. Rosart, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 708, 712, this court was called upon to determine the applicability of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in a similar transitory action in which the defendant sought to effect a change in venue. In holding the doctrine inapplicable, this court said:
Concerning the second point raised, it must first be observed that a judgment will not be set aside on the ground of improper rejection of evidence unless it appears that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice or that the error injuriously affected the substantial right of the complaining party. See 13 Fla.Jur., Evidence, § 111. The admission or rejection of testimony is primarily within the discretion of the trial judge. Huffman v. Peek, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 641.
The appellant here contends that the exclusion of the proffered testimony precluded it from showing that plaintiff's future earnings had been materially affected. Although we are convinced that the trial judge was within the limits of his discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to inquire further into the criminal conviction and the sentence imposed thereto, 3 because of the prejudicial nature of such testimony, nevertheless, conceding the evidence should have been admitted, we conclude that the appellant has failed to demonstrate the prejudice, if any, occasioned by the exclusion. In Florida, the measure of future loss to be compensated by damages is the loss of the capacity to earn, that is, the permanent impairment of the ability to earn money, and not the actual loss of earnings. See, Renuart Lumber Yard v. Levine, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 97; Mullis v. City of Miami, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 174; Smith v. Tantlinger, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 840; 9 Fla.Jur., Damages, § 52. Some jurisdictions base the award on the injured plaintiff's actual loss of wages. See Allied Van Lines v. Parsons, 80 Ariz. 85, 293 P.2d 430. The Supreme Court of this state has allowed damages for loss of earning capacity in the absence of any actual earning. See Florida Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Jones, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 396. Certainly this is true in computing damages for permanent injuries to children 4 and housewives 5 who have no history of wage earning. However, the proof must stand appellate scrutiny as to its sufficiency in giving the jury data from which to estimate in money the loss of earning capacity. Along with the mortality table, the jury may consider the injured person's age, health, habits, occupation, surroundings and earning, both before and after the injury, in assessing damages for permanent personal injury. See Loftin v. Wilson, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 185, and cases collected in 9 Fla.Jur., Damages, §§ 53 and 54. All of these items are appropriate, though less than all may suffice. Having considered all the elements of proof presented to the jury, as well as recognizing that the extent and hence the value of future earning power depends on probabilities and cannot often be reduced to certainty, 6 we conclude that there was sufficient proof upon which to base the award.
We have carefully considered the remaining points raised by the appellant and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
On Petition for Rehearing
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...the broad discretion of the trial court which will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse. See Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Ganey, 125 So.2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). See also Hayes v. State, 660 So.2d at 257; Ramirez v. State, 651 So.2d 1164 (Fla.1995).14 The majority of stud......
-
Proprietors Ins. Co. v. Valsecchi
...v. State, 408 So.2d 1024 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1111, 102 S.Ct. 2916, 73 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1982); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Ganey, 125 So.2d 576, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); Sec. 90.602, Fla.Stat. (1979). Since I believe the remaining issues are either also without merit 12 or would......
-
Zurick v. Inman
...Price v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 42 Cal.2d 577, 268 P.2d 457, 43 A.L.R.2d 756 (1954). Florida: Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Ganey, 125 So.2d 576 (Fla.App.1960); Southern Railway Co. v. Bowling, 129 So.2d 433 Illinois: Whitney v. Madden, 400 Ill. 185, 79 N.E.2d 693 (1948)......
-
W.R. Grace & Company-Conn. v. Pyke
...the plaintiff's age, health, habits, occupation, surroundings, and earnings before and after the injury. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Ganey, 125 So.2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Once an amount is determined, a jury is required to reduce any award for loss of future earning capacity to present v......