Moseley v. Ewing
Decision Date | 22 April 1955 |
Citation | 79 So.2d 776 |
Parties | Allan Milton MOSELEY, Appellant, v. Charles E. EWING, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Henry Burnett and Fowler, White, Gillen, Yancey & Humkey, Miami, for appellant.
Sylvester Adair, Homestead, and Samuels & Thomas, Hollywood, for appellee.
The appeal is from a judgment for damages in favor of the plaintiff in a suit involving an automobile accident that occurred on U. S. Highway No. 1 near Homestead, Florida. The plaintiff was injured when a motor vehicle which he was driving was hit from the rear by a motor vehicle driven by the defendant, as the plaintiff turned into the highway from an intersecting street.
During the course of the trial, plaintiff's counsel, on cross examination, asked the defendant if he had been charged with the offense of reckless driving as the result of the accident. An objection made by the defendant on the ground that the question was immaterial and irrelevant was overruled by the court, and the defendant answered the question in the affirmative. The defendant was then asked whether or not he had been convicted of reckless driving upon the charges lodged, and fined for the offense, to which the same objection was voiced, the same ruling was made, and the defendant was compelled to answer that he had been convicted of reckless driving and fined as the result of such conviction.
The defendant below contends that the refusal of the trial court to sustain the objections to the questions constituted reversible error. The plaintiff maintains that inasmuch as the only objection made was the general objection of immateriality and irrelevancy, the contention of the appellant is without merit.
We cannot agree with the position taken by the plaintiff.
Some of the decisions are to the effect that an objection to the admissibility of evidence on the general grounds of immateriality, teriality, irrelevancy or incompetency, without specifying why or in what particular the question is immaterial, irrelevant or incompetent, is tantamount to no objection at all and is generally insufficient upon which to predicate reviewable error. Shandrew v. Chicago, St. Paul, M. & O. R. Co., 8 Cir., 142 F. 320; Minchen v. Hart, 8 Cir., 72 F. 294; Eli Mining & Land Co. v. Carleton, 8 Cir., 108 F. 24; Davidson Steamship Co. v. United States, 8 Cir., 142 F. 315. But even the decisions that lay down this rule recognize that when the reasons for ruling a given question immaterial, irrelevant or incompetent are obviously and clearly discernible, an objection on these grounds, without more, will be sufficient. Shandrew v. Chicago, St. Paul, M. & O. R. Co., supra; Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343; Burlington Ins. Co. v Miller, 8 Cir., 60 F. 254; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hall, 8 Cir., 66 F. 868; Guarantee Co. of North America v. Phenix Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 124 F. 170. The same qualification is made in the opinions of this Court on the point: "General objections to evidence proposed * * * are without weight before an appellate court, unless the evidence objected to is palpably prejudicial, improper, and inadmissible for any purpose or under any circumstances." Caldwell v. People's Bank of Sanford, 73 Fla. 1165, 75 So. 848, 852. (Emphasis supplied.) In the final analysis, as to the allegedly general nature of the objection on the ground of irrelevancy, that appears to be precisely the ground upon which the courts base the exclusion of evidence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Estate of Wallace v. Fisher
...either did, or did not do any particular act. 8 Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Co., 88 So.2d 507 (Fla.1956); see also Moseley v. Ewing, 79 So.2d 776 (Fla.1955). Therefore improperly admitted evidence of the issuance or non-issuance of a traffic citation in a particular instance is prejudicial ......
-
Nell v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 675
...facts upon which the judgment of guilt was rendered."3 Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Co., 88 So.2d 507 (Fla.1956) (en banc); Moseley v. Ewing, 79 So.2d 776 (Fla.1955). Stevens v. Duke, 42 So.2d 361 (Fla.1949). The Florida view appears to be the general rule. Annot., 18 A.L.R.2d 1287 (1951) (a......
-
Anderson v. Saunders
...(1933), 135 Cal.App. 482, 127 P.2d 400; Lincoln Taxi Co., Inc., et al. v. Rice et al., (Ky. 1952), 251 S.W.2d 867.2 Moseley v. Ewing (Fla. 1955), 79 So.2d 776; Kelly v. Simoutis, supra; Walther v. News Syndicate Co., Inc. (1949), 276 App.Div. 169, 93 N.Y.S.2d 537.3 Reffelt v. Brooklyn Daily......
-
Carvajal v. Adams, 80-1320
...State v. DuBose, 152 Fla. 304, 11 So.2d 477 (1943); see Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Company, 88 So.2d 507 (Fla.1956); Moseley v. Ewing, 79 So.2d 776 (Fla.1955); Stephens v. Duke, 42 So.2d 361 (Fla.1949); Writ v. Fraser, 158 Fla. 777, 30 So.2d 174 (1947); Republic National Life Insurance Com......