Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Kubalski, 74--1705
Decision Date | 12 December 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 74--1705,74--1705 |
Citation | 323 So.2d 32 |
Parties | SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, v. Mary S. KUBALSKI, Administratrix of the Estate of Leonard Kubalski, Deceased, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William H. Davis and Frederick J. Ward, of Giles, Hedrick & Robinson, Orlando, for appellant.
Charles A. Tabscott of Troutman & Parrish, Winter Park, for appellee.
Plaintiff's decedent was killed when an Eastern Seaboard Railway train collided with his pickup truck. Decedent was stopped on a railroad track because of traffic backed up from a red light. The jury found decedent 60% Negligent and the railway 40% Negligent. Decedent's estate was awarded $130,000 in gross. Defendant railway has appealed. We reverse and remand for a new trial on the grounds that certain evidence was improperly and prejudicially entered. The grounds were raised in Point IV on appeal:
Whether the trial court committed error in permitting the witness (the president of a consulting engineer and safety consultant firm in Orlando), . . . to give . . . opinion testimony as to how an average man in the United States of America who drives a motor vehicle will react who finds himself in a line of traffic as (plaintiff's decedent) did as he approached railroad tracks as assumed in the hypothetical propounded to the witness.
Defendant has correctly argued that, unless the subject of expert testimony is one beyond the ordinary understanding of the jury, such expert testimony is not admissible. In Smaglick v. Jersey Ins. Co. of New York, 209 So.2d 475 (4th DCA Fla.1968), it was clearly stated:
'Expert opinions are admissible only when the facts to be determined are obscure and can be made clear only by the opinions of persons skilled in relation to the subject matter of the inquiry; and when facts are within the ordinary experience of the jury, conclusions therefrom will be left to them, and even experts are not permitted to give conclusions in such cases.' Id. at 476--477.
We are not unaware of the train and car collision case of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Hill, 250 So.2d 311 (4th DCA Fla.1971), in which this court approved the opinion evidence of psychologist to the effect that an average driver would not have seen a train standing in the crossing at night, when the accident occurred. The court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lugo v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co.
...situation in the case at bar). Florida Power Corporation v. Barron, 481 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Kubalski, 323 So.2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Smaglick v. Jersey Insurance Company of New York, 209 So.2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Mills v. Redwing Car......
-
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Whittler
... ... 4th DCA 1991); Buchman v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 381 So.2d 229 (Fla.1980); d Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Kubalski, 323 So.2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Finally, it is not ... ...
-
Johnson v. State
...testimony is admissible. Public Health Foundation for Cancer and Blood Pressure Research, Inc. v. Cole; Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Kubalski, 323 So.2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Hill, 250 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), writ discharged, 270 So.2d 359 (Fl......
-
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Welfare, CC-437
...557 (Fla. 1957). Witness Korobow's expert opinion testimony invaded the province of the jury. Compare Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Kubalski, 323 So.2d 32 (Fla. 4 DCA 1975). Our sister court of the Fourth District in Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Helman, supra, in addressing its......