DeMaupassant v. Evans, T--1
| Decision Date | 17 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. T--1,T--1 |
| Citation | 300 So.2d 313 |
| Parties | William Edmund DeMAUPASSANT and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Billie EVANS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
W. C. O'Neal and John H. Haswell, of Chandler, O'Neal, Gray, Lang & Stripling, Gainesville, for appellants.
Tony Cunningham, of Wagner, Cunningham, Vaughan, Hapmer & May, Tampa, Robert Orseck, of Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Miami, for appellee.
Consideration of the record on appeal, the briefs and oral argument of respective counsel in this cause fails to convince us that reversible error occurred in the trial of this personal injury action.
The primary issue raised by appellant is that the verdict rendered by the jury is excessive. We must reject that contention when we view the evidence adduced on the issue of damages in light of the principles expounded in this court's decision in St. Vincent's Hospital, Incorporated v. Crouch, Fla.App.1st 1974, 292 So.2d 405.
We also find that the remaining questions raised on this appeal are without merit.
However, we do think that this case raises an issue which should be considered by the Supreme Court of Florida when it next undertakes a revision of the Rules of Civil Procedure. But for the specific provision of Rule 1.420(a)(1) we would be of the view that the judgment in favor of plaintiff here appealed should be reversed.
This case arises out of a collision between a taxi cab in which plaintiff was the passenger and a vehicle driven by appellant William Edmund DeMaupassant and insured by appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Plaintiff initially filed suit against appellants, the taxi company and the cab driver. The case proceeded to trial against all of those defendants. During closing arguments the plaintiff's attorney as well as the attorneys for the taxi cab company and the cab driver laid the blame for the accident on appellant William Edmund DeMaupassant. Then after the defendants finished their closing arguments, the plaintiff's attorney, on 'rebuttal' announced to the jury and to the trial judge simultaneously that a nonsuit was being taken pursuant to the above mentioned rule as to the taxi cab company and as to the taxi driver, thus leaving only appellants to take the brunt of the jury's decision.
Rule 1.420(a)(1) Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically provides that a non-suit (or voluntary dismissal) may be taken by a plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hinton v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co., 74--984
...filed June 1, 1975). In its Fears opinion, the Supreme Court approved a later decision of the same district court in DeMaupassant v. Evans, Fla.App.1st, 1974, 300 So.2d 313, which held that under Rule 1.420(a)(1) a plaintiff had a right to take a voluntary dismissal against less than all of......
-
Gonzalez v. Turner, 82-2621
...Insurance Co., 317 So.2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). See Fischer v. Bartberger, 330 So.2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); DeMaupassant v. Evans, 300 So.2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Thus, when Gonzalez announced her voluntary dismissal of Nowak, the case terminated as to Nowak only. Since jurisdiction o......
-
Fears v. Lunsford
...case. 3 Subsequent to the First District's decision in the instant case, a different panel of the same court held in DeMaupassant v. Evans, 300 So.2d 313 (Fla.App.1st 1974), directly contrary to the cause now before us. We hold that the plaintiff's right to tak a nonsuit or voluntary dismis......