Friddle v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 45213 and 45214,s. 45213 and 45214 |
| Citation | 306 So.2d 97 |
| Parties | Darlene D. FRIDDLE, Petitioner, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY and Harold Jefferson Bridges, Respondents. Darlene D. FRIDDLE, as Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas B. Friddle, a/k/a Thomas Bascom Friddle, Petitioner, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY and Harold Jefferson Bridges, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jack B. Nichols, Nichols & Tatich, Orlando, for petitioners.
Frederick J. Ward, Giles, Hedrick & Robinson, Orlando, for respondents.
We here review by writs of certiorari the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Friddle (Fla.App.1974), 290 So.2d 85, in these consolidated cases.
The facts and legal issues of the cases are fully set forth in the report of the District Court opinion and need not be restated by us.
After careful consideration including study of the transcript and briefs, and hearing oral argument we conclude that decisional conflict did occur as pointed out in Judge Mager's dissenting opinion in the District Court appeal. Direct conflict appears with the rationale of such cases as Chambers v. Loftin, (Fla.1953), 67 So.2d 220, and our recent decision in Perret v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 299 So.2d 590, opinion filed July 3, 1974. In Perret we outlined the rules of law balancing a railroad's negligence with the contributory negligence of an automobile driver when considering proffered evidence concerning prior railroad crossing accidents.
The reasoning of Judge Mager upholding the admission of evidence of prior accidents in the instant cases accords more logically with the decisions relied on for conflict than with the reasoning of the District Court majority holding against admission of such evidence.
We also agree with Judge Mager that the testimony of the witness Stoll that on prior occasions to the accident herein he (Stoll) was not able to hear the train whistle was inadmissible.
We are inclined to disagree with Judge Mager concerning his observations pertaining to the unrelated death of plaintiff's (petitioner's) son some nine months prior to the collision. We think this evidence was inadmissible.
Our agreement with Judge Mager on the point concerning admission of evidence of prior accidents and the Florida cases he cites in support serves in this certiorari review to demonstrate decisional conflict warranting our opening the entire records of the cases and the giving of such judgment on the merits as appears just and proper.
From the evidence overall, we find the jury's verdict should stand as to liability on the part of respondent. However, in the matter of damages it is our view that in balancing the comparative effect of the evidence the trial judge, in exercising his discretion as to the admission of evidence, went too far by permitting introduction of the Stoll testimony referred to above and in allowing testimony of the unrelated death of petitioner's son.
Notwithstanding, we feel the ends of justice will best be served and a conclusion of this complex and protracted litigation will best...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lasar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Bachanov
...denied, 412 So.2d 466 (Fla.1982); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Friddle, 290 So.2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev'd, 306 So.2d 97 (Fla.1974) (adopting dissenting opinion). As a general rule, evidence of the occurrence or non-occurrence of a prior accident is admissible where it pertains to th......
-
Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
...denied, 353 So.2d 680 (Fla.1977); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Friddle, 290 So.2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev'd, 306 So.2d 97 (Fla.1974) (adopting dissenting opinion). In Firth v. Marhoefer, 406 So.2d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that it was prejudicia......
-
LEWIS v. SUN TIME Corp. d/b/a Prime Time
...of whether a proper predicate of similarity exists should be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.”); Friddle v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 306 So.2d 97 (Fla.1974); Ry. Express Agency, Inc. v. Fulmer, 227 So.2d 870, 873 (Fla.1969); Hogan v. Gable, 30 So.3d 573, 575-76 (Fla. 1s......
-
Godfrey v. Precision Airmotive Corp.
...which they will give the evidence." Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 411.2 (2010). Similarly, in Friddle v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 306 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974), the Florida Supreme Court adopted the dissent in Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Friddle, 290 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 4......