Collins v. Farley
| Decision Date | 11 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 61-54,61-54 |
| Citation | 147 So.2d 593 |
| Parties | Everett A. COLLINS, Administrator ad litem of the Estate of Elonzo P. Dann, Jr., deceased, Appellant, v. Hubert FARLEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ross, Reinhardt & Preddy, Miami, for appellant.
Headley & Sudduth, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Farley v. Collins, Fla.1962, 146 So.2d 366, reversed this court's opinion rendered in Collins v. Farley, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 31, and remanded for further proceedings consistent therewith. Accordingly, the matter was set for re-argument by the parties on all points not disposed of by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
The extent of the Supreme Court's consideration of our previous decision is clearly set forth in Farley v. Collins, supra, and reference can be made to that decision for a full discussion of the essential facts and legal issues involved.
In our prior opinion we mentioned that the appellant had raised two additional points on appeal which we found unnecessary to rule upon because of our holding on other grounds. It now becomes incumbent upon us to decide these points, to-wit:
1. whether certain comments made by the trial judge were improper and necessitated a new trial, and
2. whether the ruling of the trial judge which precluded the use by the defendant of plaintiff's income tax returns for impeachment of plaintiff's claimed loss of earnings, was reversible error.
As to the first point, we hold that the defendant failed to preserve the point for appeal by failing to make a timely objection to the remarks at the time of trial. Marsh v. Sarasota County, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 312.
As to the second point, we hold that the trial judge committed prejudicial, reversible error by refusing to allow the defendant to use the plaintiff's income tax returns on cross-examination for the purpose of impeaching plaintiff's testimony as to his loss of earnings. The trial judge erroneously concluded that the income tax returns of the plaintiff, a taxi cab driver, were unreliable indications of his true income because a large portion of such income was from gratuities. The court may not presume that the plaintiff failed to report such gratuities as income. The internal revenue tax returns were admissible evidence bearing upon the issue of plaintiff's loss of earnings. Merriman v. Cities Service Gas Co., 11...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lusk v. State
...of an objection we must hold that the issue was not preserved for appeal and thus is not properly before this Court. Collins v. Farley, 147 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Even if this issue were properly preserved, the trial court's remarks do not constitute grounds for reversal. Viewed in r......
-
Coleman v. Coleman
...Olivier was at most cumulative. We agree. Appellants cite Schield Bantum Company v. Greif, 161 So.2d 266 (Fla.App.1964), Collins v. Farley, 147 So.2d 593 (Fla.App.1962), and Central Mutual Insurance Company v. Newman, 117 So.2d 41 (Fla.App.1960), in support of their contention that the cour......
-
Cornwell v. Plummer
...for the purpose of contradicting his trial testimony on a matter in issue, including especially, loss of earnings. Collins v. Farley, 147 So.2d 593 (Fla.App.1962), Halladay v. Verschorr, 381 F.2d 100 (8 Cir. Loss of profits and earnings was a vital issue and the trial judge's denial of cros......
-
McFarlin v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 90-677
...injury plaintiff's internal revenue tax returns are relevant evidence bearing on the issue of loss of earnings. Collins v. Farley, 147 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). We, therefore, cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial on damages. A party is not r......