Katz v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Citation | 136 So.2d 11 |
| Docket Number | No. 61-540,61-540 |
| Parties | Harry KATZ and Hilda Katz, his wife, Appellants, v. RED TOP SEDAN SERVICE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1962 |
Page 11
v.
RED TOP SEDAN SERVICE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1962.
Daniel L. Ginsberg and Sheldon R. Rosenthal, Miami, for appellants.
Page 12
Ross, Reinhardt & Preddy, Miami, and Gilbert A. Haddad, So. Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The appellants (husband and wife), who were plaintiffs in the trial court in an action for personal injuries to the wife, seek reversal of a final judgment rendered upon a jury's verdict in their favor after a confession of liability by the defendant prior to the commencement of the trial; the judgment not being 'wholly' in their favor they have a right to seek appellate review. See Lovett v. Lovett, 93 Fla. 611, 112 So. 768; Zigler v. Erler Corporation, 102 Fla. 981, 136 So. 718; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 10.
The appellants, in seeking reversal, urge error in three particulars: (1) failure of the trial judge to adequately charge on the admissions of liability by the defendant; (2) failure of the trial judge to permit a question and answer of a treating physician, contained in a deposition, to be read into the evidence in regard to permanent disability; and (3) failure of the trial judge to permit evidence to be introduced as to the force and impact which caused the injury.
We find no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellants. As to the first, the plaintiffs requested no affirmative charge on the admission of liability by the defendant. The record reflects that, repeatedly through the trial, it was brought to the attention of the jury that the defendant admitted liability and that the jury, in fact, found the defendant liable. As to the second, the question attempted to be elicited from the doctor as an expert witness did not meet the test of 'reasonable medical certainty'. See Westbrook v. Bacskai, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 241. The exclusion of this evidence on the point of permanent disability did not prevent the question of permanent disability being brought to the jury's attention, as there had already been introduced into evidence testimony by a local doctor in regard to permanent disability, and the rejected testimony could have been no more than cumulative. As to the third point, the injured party testified to the facts and circumstances surrounding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tuscaloosa Res., Inc. v. Ala. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt. (Ex parte Ala. Rivers Alliance)
...bring this appeal, I would dismiss TRI's appeal.“_________________________“ 1 This court also cited Katz v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., 136 So.2d 11 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1962). In that case, however, the appellants had been successful in the circuit court, but assigned errors based on their as......
-
Tuscaloosa Res., Inc. v. Ala. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt.
...bring this appeal, I would dismiss TRI's appeal. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.1 This court also cited Katz v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., 136 So.2d 11 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1962). In that case, however, the appellants had been successful in the circuit court, but assigned errors based on......
-
Personnel Bd. of Jefferson County v. Bailey
...has a right to appeal. See, e.g., Price v. South Central Bell, 294 Ala. 144, 313 So.2d 184 (1975). See also Katz v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., 136 So.2d 11 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1962). We conclude that Bailey has a right to cross-appeal the circuit court's finding on the grievability issue, be......
-
McLeod v. Young
...Osteopathic Hospital, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 492; Golden v. Harrell, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 350; Katz v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 11; Thorsell v. Miller, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 677; Arnold Owens, Inc. v. Balido, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d Forasmuch as we ar......