Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. J. A. Jones Const. Co., 68--1011
| Decision Date | 13 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--1011,68--1011 |
| Parties | EASTERN AIR LINES, INC., for the Use and Benefit of Factory Insurance Association, Appellant, v. J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION CO., Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, the Zack Co., and H. H. Robertson Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dixon, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell and Barry G. Seidel, Miami, for appellant.
Smathers & Thompson and James L. Armstrong, III, Miami, for Jones Constr., and Aetna Casualty.
Feibelman, Friedman, Hyman & Britton, Miami, for Zack Co.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for Robertson Co., appellees.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant (plaintiff below) sued the appellees (defendants) in the trial court and sought to recover damages resulting from an alleged breach of certain agreements. The defendants answered and a jury trial followed. The jury returned a verdict for all of the defendants; a final judgment was rendered for the defendants, and this appeal followed.
The appellant argues that the trial court erred in permitting 'evidence to be introduced of the wind velocity two miles from the hangar building and much closer to the center of the storm when evidence had already been introduced of maximum recorded wind velocity at the approximate location of the hangar.'
The roof of an Eastern Airline hangar building had been severely damaged by Hurricane Cleo. As a result of the damage, this law suit was filed.
Plaintiff introduced evidence that the highest recorded wind velocity taken at the Miami International Airport, approximately one mile from the hangar, was 100 m.p.h. at an elevation of 23 feet. One of the defendants introduced evidence taken at the National Hurricane Center which was approximately two miles east of the airport, and much closer to the eye of the storm, that the maximum recorded wind gusts were 135 m.p.h. at an elevation of 111 feet. The objection to the introduction of the higher wind velocity was that it would mislead and confuse the jury. This objection was overruled and the plaintiff argues that this constituted reversible error. There was testimony that the wind velocity in a hurricane increases as elevation increases up to several hundred feet. The anemometer at the National Hurricane Center was at approximately 111 feet, and the roof of the Eastern Airline hangar was approximately 98 feet from the ground. Both reports as to wind velocity were from the United States Weather Bureau. Neither of the weather reports were actually taken at the hangar in question.
We find no reversible error in permitting the second weather report to go to the jury in order that it might try to determine the wind speed at the hangar in question on the basis of the reliable evidence available.
The appellant's second point is directed to the alleged error of the trial court in permitting two of the defendants' witnesses to testify as expert witnesses. We are of the opinion, from a review of the record, that no error was committed in this regard. See Upchurch v. Barnes, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 26; Myers v. Korbly, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 215; Fla.Stat. § 90.23, F.S.A.
The appellant next claims that the trial judge committed reversible error in communicating with the jury out of the presence of the parties and their counsel after the jury had retired to the jury room to consider...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Polchinski, 93-0113
...So.2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Walt Disney World Co. v. Althouse, 427 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); and Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. J.A. Jones Constr. Co., 223 So.2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 229 So.2d 868 The record is unclear about what transpired concerning a second question the j......
-
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander
...or as soon as the opportunity is presented, or be considered having waived his objection.”) (quoting E. Air Lines, Inc. v. J.A. Jones Constr. Co., 223 So.2d 332, 333–34 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1969) (emphasis in original)). Instead, Lorillard waited until it received an unfavorable verdict to do addi......
-
Rooney v. Hannon, 97-0920.
...the incident may not be raised as a ground for a new trial. As the third district held in Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. J.A. Jones Construction Co., 223 So.2d 332, 333-34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969): As a general rule, if a party obtains knowledge during the progress of the trial of acts of jurors, or ......
-
J. A. Jones Const. Co. v. Zack Co.
...the defendants and judgment was entered thereon. The plaintiff (Eastern) appealed, and this court affirmed (Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. J. A. Jones Construction Co., 223 So.2d 332). It was stipulated in the record that in the trial of the case Eastern attributed the cause of the damages to t......