Curr v. Helene Transp. Corp., s. 73--610
| Decision Date | 21 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 73--610,73--366,73--365,s. 73--610 |
| Citation | 287 So.2d 695 |
| Parties | Yvette CURR and Matthew William Curr, her husband, Appellants, v. HELENE TRANSPORTATION CORP., a Florida corporation d/b/a Yellow Cab, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Milton Kelner, Miami, for appellants.
Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Plaintiff-appellants seek review in this consolidated appeal of an order and amended order deleting two of the defendants from the final judgment and granting them a new trial as to the issue of ownership.
Plaintiff, Yvette Curr sustained serious injuries when she was struck by a taxicab which was negligently driven. Plaintiff, joined by her husband, filed suit against Louis Friedman, the driver, and the alleged owners of the taxicab. Samuel Levine, Helene Transportation Corporation and Yelmor Transportation, Inc. At the commencement of the jury trial, counsel for defendants in open court admitted liability of all the defendants. The jury, charged with the issue of damages, returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and her husband in the sum of $70,000 and judgment was entered thereon. Thereafter, all the defendants moved for a new trial and/or remittitur on the grounds that the verdict was excessive. In addition, Yelmor Transportation, Inc. and Samuel Levine moved that they be deleted from the judgment because they were never the owners of the taxicab in question and through excusable mistake of defense counsel they were not dismissed from the lawsuit. In support thereof, Samuel Levine filed an affidavit to which was attached a Florida motor vehicle certificate of title issued to Helene Transportation Corporation as the owner of the subject taxicab. Thereupon, the court entered an order denying the motion of defendants for new trial and/or remittitur, but vacating and setting aside that portion of the judgment which pertained to the defendants, Yelmor Transportation, Inc. and Samuel Levine. The plaintiffs appealed the above order and assigned as error the failure of the trial court to amend the other appealed by specifying the grounds for new trial. The trial judge entered an amended order which granted defendants Levine and Yelmor, Inc. a new trial on the issue of ownership on the grounds that: (1) the record affirmatively showed that these defendants were not the owners of the taxicab, (2) due to excusable mistake and inadvertence these defendants were not dismissed from the lawsuit, and (3) the record is devoid of any evidence upon which a jury could have found that these defendants owned the taxicab. The plaintiffs then appealed this amended order which was consolidated with the prior appeals.
On appeal, plaintiff-appellants contend that the trial court erred in ignoring the stipulation that defendants Yelmor, Inc. and Levine were legally responsible for plaintiff's damages. We agree.
The admission by defense counsel in court at the time of trial as to the liability of all the defendants and entered on the court record was a valid stipulation which was binding upon all parties and the trial court. See 2 Fla.Jur. Agreed Case and Stipulations §§ 2, 4, 7, 8 (1963). Thus, this statement operated as a waiver of all defense, including the defense with respect to the ownership of the taxicab. Cf. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fawaz v. Florida Polymers
...586 So.2d 1295, 1298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Lopez v. Dublin Co., 489 So.2d 805, 807 & n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Curr v. Helene Transp. Corp., 287 So.2d 695, 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The record in the instant case fails to reveal, however, that the E/SA complied with the above rule by filing suc......
-
Santa Fe Development Corp. v. Randolph, s. 86-154
...was entirely ineffective. See State ex rel. Pettengill v. Copelan, 466 So.2d 1133, 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Curr v. Helene Transp. Corp., 287 So.2d 695, 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Schield Bantum Co. v. Greif, 161 So.2d 266, 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Martel v. Carlson, 118 So.2d 592, 594 (Fla. 3......
-
Mike Snapp Bail Bonds v. Orange County
...binding on parties); Lockheed Space Operations v. Pham, 600 So.2d 1261, 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Curr v. Helene Transportation Corp., 287 So.2d 695, 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Although it is unclear which provision of the statute is controlling in this case — section 903.26(5)(c) or 903.26(8)......
-
Groover v. Groover, 78-2207
...obtained by fraud, misrepresentations or mistake of fact. Esch v. Foster, 123 Fla. 905, 168 So. 229 (1936); Curr v. Helene Transportation Corp., 287 So.2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Appellant has asked not only for relief from the judgment but also a return of the alimony payments already made......