Schield Bantum Co. v. Greif, s. 62-752
| Decision Date | 25 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | 63-49,Nos. 62-752,s. 62-752 |
| Citation | 161 So.2d 266 |
| Parties | SCHIELD BANTUM COMPANY, Inc., an Lowa corporation, Appellant, v. James M. GREIF, Appellee. ALBERT RICKEL, INC., a Florida corporation, and Gevan Nixon, Jr., Appellants, v. James M. GREIF, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahl, Miami, for appellant Schield Bantum Co., Inc.
Papy & Carruthers, Miami, for appellant Albert Rickel, Inc.
Nichols, Gaither, Beckham, Colson & Spence and Alan R. Schwartz, Miami, for appellee.
Before CARROLL, TILLMAN PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
These consolidated appeals are by defendants from a judgment based on a verdict won by the plaintiff-appellee in a motor vehicle accident case. Plaintiff was injured when his vehicle, stopped by a traffic signal, was struck from the rear by another motor vehicle, a mobile crane. The latter vehicle had suffered a brake failure caused by damage to a brake line which ran along the top of an axle instead of on the side. The action was against the manufacturer, the owner and the driver. The jury verdict was for the plaintiff and against all the defendants. After hearing argument and considering the briefs and record we find no reversible error as to liability but we reverse the judgment and remand for new trial on damages. Prejudicial error was committed at the trial when defendants were not allowed to show in evidence that for an injury received some years earlier the plaintiff had been assigned a 25% permanent partial disability in a workmen's compensation case in Kentucky, and that some months prior to trial the plaintiff had written to the Kentucky Workmen's Compensation Board requesting to have his case reopened. See Central Mutual Insurance Company v. Newman, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 41; Corbett v. Berg, Fla.App.1963, 152 So.2d 196. The plaintiff had testified that for the past two year his condition of health was perfect. At the trial the evidence as to the extent of his injuries was not without out conflict. Doctors who testified were not in agreement on disability percentages. The prior injury was brought out, and aggravation thereof was an element for consideration. The damages awarded were considerable. As appellants contend, there is no way of knowing whether the amount of the verdict would have been different if the jury had been shown this relevant evidence offered for the purpose of impeachment and to show that plaintiff's condition prior to the accident may not have been as he testified. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the
circuit court for a new trial on damages only.
ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING
Appellants, petitioning for rehearing, suggest that on holding there was no reversible error as to liability and in granting a new trial on damages only, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Santa Fe Development Corp. v. Randolph, s. 86-154
...466 So.2d 1133, 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Curr v. Helene Transp. Corp., 287 So.2d 695, 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Schield Bantum Co. v. Greif, 161 So.2d 266, 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Martel v. Carlson, 118 So.2d 592, 594 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 123 So.2d 674 Second, we see no error in deny......
-
Coleman v. Coleman
...if any, was harmless because the testimony of witness Olivier was at most cumulative. We agree. Appellants cite Schield Bantum Company v. Greif, 161 So.2d 266 (Fla.App.1964), Collins v. Farley, 147 So.2d 593 (Fla.App.1962), and Central Mutual Insurance Company v. Newman, 117 So.2d 41 (Fla.A......
-
Davis v. Sobik's Sandwich Shops, Inc.
...v. Blankenhorn, supra, and Ringler v. McVeigh, supra, affirmed directed verdicts as to liability. See also Schield Bantum Co. v. Greif, 161 So.2d 266 (Fla.3d DCA 1964), and Mansell v. Eidge, 179 So.2d 624 (Fla.3d DCA In arriving at its decision below, the Fourth District Court of Appeal rel......
-
Stafford v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 5266
...herein bears solely on the issue of damages, and, therefore, remand the cause for a new trial on damages only. Schield Bantum Co. v. Greif, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 266. See also Jesters v. Taylor, Fla.1958, 105 So.2d ALLEN, C. J., and SMITH, J., concur. ...