Ratner v. Arrington
| Decision Date | 09 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 58-335,58-335 |
| Citation | 111 So.2d 82 |
| Parties | Lee RATNER and Harry James Johnson, Appellants, v. Wendell P. ARRINGTON and Royal Palm Flying Service, Inc., a corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Smathers, Thompson & Dyer, Miami, for appellants.
Nichols, Gaither, Green, Frates & Beckham, Miami, for appellee Wendell P. Arrington.
The appellee Wendell P. Arrington was injured in a collision between a private aircraft in which he was riding and another aircraft. Arrington filed an action for damages in the Circuit Court in Dade County against Lee Ratner and Harry James Johnson, the owner and the pilot respectively of the aircraft in which he was a passenger, and also against Royal Palm Flying Service, Inc., the owner of the other aircraft involved. The complaint charged that negligent operation of the two airplanes caused plaintiff's injuries.
The Ratner party had taken off from North Perry Airport on a business trip. Arrington had been engaged to do certain work for Ratner at a location to which they were proceeding.
The accident occurred in the daytime on December 8, 1955, when the Ratner aircraft was landing at Page Field in Fort Myers. As the Ratner aircraft came in for a landing on an appropriate runway and had 'touched down', a 'crop duster' aircraft, which was owned and being operated by Royal Palm Flying Service, Inc., started its take-off on an intersecting runway, with the collision resulting. In the Ratner airplane at the time of the collision were the owner Ratner, the pilot Johnson, Arrington and two other passengers.
The trial of the cause before a jury resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff Arrington against the three defendants for $198,339. Ratner and Johnson appealed.
The assignments of error and the points raised thereon by appellants have been examined and considered in the light of the record, briefs and argument, and are found to be without merit, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Two of the questions raised require some discussion. During the course of the trial one J. T. Watson, an investigator for the Civil Aeronautics Administration, a witness called on behalf of the plaintiff, was allowed to testify as to certain statements made to him by the appellant Johnson, who was the pilot of the Ratner aircraft. He testified Johnson said that he (Johnson) did not make a pattern approach but a direct approach. This portion of Watson's testimony was as follows:
'A. It was on December 8, 1955, approximately two hours after the accident happened, at Page Field in Fort Myers, Florida. I interviewed Mr. Johnson as soon as I got there; and I asked him the details of his version of the crash. At that time, particularly, I asked him what type of traffic pattern he had made to Page Field. He told----
'Q. What answer did he give you as to that, sir? A. He told me that he had flown from about four miles south of Alva, where Mr. Ratner had a farm, and he had called in and got clearance for a VFR [visual flight rules] approach in a Control Zone. We drew the flight path out on scratch paper, showing the route that he estimated that he flew; and he said he made a slight correction to line up with the runway, came on in and landed on Runway 22.
'Q. Now, was that his complete statement to you on the occasion of your first interview with Mr. Johnson? A. Practically so. Prior to my leaving to go back to Tampa, I asked him again, and I showed him the sketch I had, if that was his version of it; and at that time he made a slight correction in it, saying he believed he flew a little closer to the airport and made approximately a forty-five degree approach to the approach end of the runway.
Appellants contended in the trial court, and argued here, that this testimony was inadmissible under 49 U.S.C.A. § 581 [now § 1441(e)]. 1
That statute, which included provision for C.A.B. investigation of airplane accidents, provided 'that no part of any report or reports of the former Air Safety Board or the Civil Aeronautics Board relating to any accident, or the investigation thereof, shall be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in such report or reports.'
Appellants contend that this court should construe that provision of the federal statute to bar the introduction of the investigator's testimony as above quoted; and as a ground for so contending, appellants, by analogy, point to the Florida case of Stevens v. Duke, Fla.1949, 42 So.2d 361, which held that § 317.17, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., requiring motor vehicle accident reports to be kept confidential and prohibiting their use as evidence in any trial, operates to exclude testimony by an investigating officer of statements made to him by the parties in the course of the investigation reported.
However, we are not free to place upon the federal statute the interpretation thus contended for by appellants, as we must give effect to the construction given it by the federal appellate courts. See Roberts v. American Nat. Bank, 94 Fla. 427, 115 So. 261, 263; Humphreys v. State ex rel. Palm Beach Co., 108 Fla. 92, 145 So. 858, 861; Cadieux v. Cadieux, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 700, 702.
Federal appellate court have placed a narrow construction on this statutory provision, holding that it was designed to guard against introduction of reports 'expressing agency views about matters which are within the function of courts and juries to decide', and to prevent introduction into evidence of 'opinions or conclusions about possible causes of the accident or defendant's negligence'. The federal courts hold that the statute does not render inadmissible testimony of such an investigating official of statements made to him by a party during the course of the investigation. Universal Airline v. Eastern Air Lines, 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 219, 188 F.2d 993; Lobel v. American Air Lines, 2 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 217, 220, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 945, 72 S.Ct. 558, 96 L.Ed. 703; Israel v. United States, 2 Cir., 1957, 247 F.2d 426, (citing: Ritts v. American Overseas Airlines, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1947, 97 F.Supp. 457; Tansey v. Transcontinental & Western Air, D.C.1949, 97 F. Supp. 458); Maxwell v. Fink, 1953, 264 Wis. 106, 58 N.W.2d 415. On that construction of the federal statute, Watson's testimony was admissible, and the learned trial judge properly overruled the objections thereto.
We next consider the contention made by appellants that the court was guilty of prejudicial error in overruling their objections to the use before the jury, by the counsel for plaintiff in their closing arguments, of a placard showing items of damages and suggested amounts to be awarded therefor. 2
In argument at the close of the trial, appellee's counsel produced and referred to a placard or chart prepared by them. This chart was about two and a half feet wide and three feet high, made of heavy white cardboard. There was written thereon, in bold lettering in black ink appellee's name, age, life expectancy; his medical expenses, including names of hospitals and doctors with amounts set opposite each, and which were sub-totaled. The chart then listed 'Pain and Suffering' under which it gave dates showing the period from the accident to date of the trial, and then stated '783 days 15', with the amount thus calculated, $11,745. An item of 'Physical Disability and Inability to Lead a Normal Life' was similarly treated, as was the item 'Loss of Earnings' with a computation on a weekly basis. The chart continued, repeating and treating the same headings as items of future damages. For a better understanding of the appearance and contents of the chart, it is copied into this opinion, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beagle v. Vasold
...Newbury v. Vogel (1963) 151 Colo. 520, 379 P.2d 811; Evening Star Newspaper Co. v. Gray (D.C.Mun.App.1962) 179 A.2d 377; Ratner v. Arrington (Fla.App.1959) 111 So.2d 82; Southern Indiana Gas & Elec. Co. v. Bone (1962) 135 Ind.App. 531, 180 N.E.2d 375, affd. 244 Ind. 672, 195 N.E.2d 488; Cor......
-
Franco v. Fujimoto
...that the allowance or disallowance of the argument rests in the discretion of the trial court on a case to case basis. Ratner v. Arrington, Dist.Ct.App.Fla., 111 So.2d 82; Johnson v. Brown, 75 Nev. 437, 345 P.2d 754; Jones v. Hogan, 56 Wash.2d 23, 351 P.2d 153; Olsen v. Preferred Risk Mutua......
-
Caylor v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
...King v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., (North Dakota), 107 N.W.2d 509; Miller v. Loy, 101 Ohio App. 405, 140 N.E.2d 38; Ratner v. Arrington, (Fla.App.), 111 So.2d 82; Johnson v. Brown, 75 Nev. 437, 345 P.2d 754; Olsen v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company, 11 Utah 2d 23, 354 P.2d 575; J......
-
Harper v. Bolton
...regarded as proper by the decided weight of judicial authority. Ratner v. Arrington, District Court of Appeals of Florida, Third District, 111 So.2d 82; Clark v. Hudson, 265 Ala. 630, 93 So.2d 133 ; McLaney v. Turner, 267 Ala. 588, 104 So.2d 315; Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v.......
-
Handling Evidentiary Issues
...that allow per diem arguments at the sole discretion of the trial judge. These jurisdictions include: • Florida, Ratner v. Arrington , 111 So.2d 82, 87 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1959). • Hawaii, Barretto v. Akau , 51 Haw. 383, 393 (1969). • Michigan, Yates v. Wenk , 363 Mich. 311, 317-18 (1961). • ......
-
Table of cases
...to the Jury C-6 Q Quest Diagnostics, Inc. v. MCI WorldCom, Inc. , 656 N.W.2d 858 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002), §22:17 R Ratner v. Arrington , 111 So.2d 82, 87 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1959), §9:05 Regional Airport Authority of Louisville v. LFG, LLC , 460 F.3d 697, 715 (6th Cir. 2006), §17:33 Reindl v. O......
-
Table of Cases
...Cir. 1995), §22:10 Q Quest Diagnostics, Inc. v. MCI WorldCom, Inc. , 656 N.W.2d 858 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002), §22:17 R Ratner v. Arrington , 111 So.2d 82, 87 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1959), §9:05 Regional Airport Authority of Louisville v. LFG, LLC , 460 F.3d 697, 715 (6th Cir. 2006), §17:33 Reindl v......
-
Table of cases
...Cir. 1995), §22:10 Q Quest Diagnostics, Inc. v. MCI WorldCom, Inc. , 656 N.W.2d 858 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002), §22:17 R Ratner v. Arrington , 111 So.2d 82, 87 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1959), §9:05 Regional Airport Authority of Louisville v. LFG, LLC , 460 F.3d 697, 715 (6th Cir. 2006), §17:33 Reindl v......