Hughes v. Canal Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--240,74--240 |
| Citation | 308 So.2d 552 |
| Parties | Marvin Lynn HUGHES, Sr., Appellant, v. CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a South Carolina Corporation, doing business in Florida, subrogree of Moore Meats, Inc., and Moore Meats, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown and Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Sherouse, Virgin, Whittle & Slatko and Gary E. Garbis, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., HENDRY, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
This is an appeal by Marvin Lynn Hughes, Sr., the defendant/counter-plaintiff below, from a final judgment entered pursuant to an adverse jury verdict.
The appellant's only point on appeal suggests that the trial court erred in permitting a lay witness, one DeWayne D. Free, to offer opinion testimony that there was sufficient distance between the two vehicles involved in this case for the appellees' tractor-trailer truck to complete a left-hand turn without causing an accident.
For reasons to follow, we hold that no reversible error has been demonstrated.
The accident from which this litigation evolved occurred within the city of Chiefland, in Levy County, Florida, on November 28, 1971.
The mishap took place on State Road 55, the main roadway in Chiefland consisting of four-lanes, two running northerly and two in a southerly direction.
The time of the accident was estimated at approximately 7:30 P.M. It was almost dark. In addition, the road was wet due to rainfall.
The evidence at trial also established that the road is well-lighted with high-velocity type street lights, and that in the area where the accident happened the roadway is straight and flat, and on the night of the accident visibility was not significantly impaired.
The appellant, Hughes, testified that he and his son were proceeding southerly in their pickup truck on State Road 55, headed for New Port Ritchie, Florida. They had left Memphis, Tennessee, at approximately 5:00 A.M. the same morning, and except for stops to eat and refuel, he and his son had driven all day.
The record shows that Mr. Free and his wife were eyewitnesses to the accident, as they were seated in their vehicle in a truck stop west of the highway.
From their deposition testimony offered by the appellees at trial and from the testimony of the investigating police officer, we think the jury properly could conclude that the accident occurred in the following manner:
The appellees' tractor-trailer truck, heading north on State Road 55, attempted to make a left-hand turn into the truck stop. In so doing, the appellant's pickup truck collided with the rear-wheels of the truck, in the outermost, southbound lane of the road farthest away from the median strip of the street.
In sum, we think the record amply supports a jury conclusion that when the collision took place the appellees' vehicle had virtually completed its left turn into the truck stop.
In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Free testified without objection from their depositions that Hughes could have safely swerved his car into the innermost southbound lane of traffic, and that there was nothing which impeded him from doing so. They also testified that the tractor-trailer was a 'shiny, clean truck,' easily visible.
Mrs. Free also testified without objection that the driver of the pickup, apparently Hughes, told her he did not see the tractor-trailer truck prior to the accident.
The investigating officer corroborated some of this testimony, stating that he found no skid marks, and that all the debris from the accident was located in the outermost, southbound lane of traffic (and in a parking area and the driveway area of the truck stop located to the west thereof).
Following introduction of this evidence, the appellees called Mr. Free to testify in person. As part of his testimony, Free stated with no objection made by the appellant that the headlights of the oncoming, southbound traffic at the particular time of day in question could be seen first approaching at approximately 200 to 250 feet to the north.
He then rendered his opinion to which the appellant took vigorous exception. The record reveals the following exchange:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fino v. Nodine
...the decision of whether or not to allow lay witness opinion testimony is within the discretion of the trial court. Hughes v. Canal Ins. Co., 308 So.2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). "Generally, a lay witness may not testify in terms of an inference or opinion, because it usurps the function of the......
-
School Bd. of Broward County v. Surette
...sufficient evidence to justify the jury in reaching the conclusion supported by the opinion of the expert. Hughes v. Canal Insurance Company, 308 So.2d 552 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Hill, 250 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Brevard County v. Apel, 246 So.2d 134 (Fla.......
-
Carvajal v. Adams, 80-1320
...testimony was harmless in light of Carvajal's several admissions and other evidence that he shot into the van, Hughes v. Canal Insurance Company, 308 So.2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); (3) Carvajal was not entitled to have the jury instructed that he was acquitted of criminal charges arising out......
-
Eastern S. S. Lines, Inc. v. Martial, 79-415
...v. Albriza, 365 So.2d 804 (Fla.4th DCA 1978); Walker v. City of Miami, 337 So.2d 1002 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Hughes v. Canal Insurance Company, 308 So.2d 552 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). Eastern Steamship Lines and Ares Shipping have also raised the point that their motion for mistrial was erroneously de......