Shessel v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 07 January 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-5652,89-5652 |
| Citation | 920 F.2d 784 |
| Parties | Herbert SHESSEL, Madlyne Shessel, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Joseph H. MURPHY, Jr., as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mary Calhoun, deceased, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Edwin P. Krieger, Howland & Krieger, Coral Gables, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Sharon L. Wolfe, Marc Cooper, Cooper, Wolfe & Bolotin, P.A., Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before ANDERSON and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges and MORGAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Joseph H. Murphy, Jr., as personal representative of the estate of Mary Calhoun, appeals a final judgment entered in favor of appellees/plaintiffs, Dr. Herbert Shessel and his wife, Madlyne Shessel. Dr. Shessel was injured when his golf cart collided with an automobile driven by Mrs. Calhoun. The Shessels sued for damages, alleging that Mrs. Calhoun was negligent in operating her vehicle. Mrs. Calhoun, in turn, raised the issue of Dr. Shessel's comparative negligence.
Prior to trial, plaintiffs moved in limine to preclude the introduction of evidence regarding collateral source payments made to Dr. Shessel. This motion was granted. Defendant asserts that the court below erred in granting this motion in limine.
At trial, the district judge directed a verdict for Dr. Shessel on the issue of Mrs. Calhoun's negligence, and against Mrs. Calhoun on the issue of Dr. Shessel's comparative negligence. The latter directed verdict the defendant cites as error.
The issue of damages was put to the jury, and it returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Shessel for $560,000 and in favor of Mrs. Shessel for $40,000 on her derivative claim.
Defendant appeals to this Court and seeks a new trial on all issues, including damages. We hold that the trial court erred in directing a verdict as to comparative negligence. We find, however, no error in the court's granting of plaintiffs' motion in limine.
The applicable Florida law regarding collateral source payments was as follows:
In any action for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of the ownership, operation, use, or maintenance of a motor vehicle, the court shall admit into evidence the total amount of all collateral sources paid to the claimant, and the court shall instruct the jury to deduct from its verdict the value of all benefits received by the claimant from any collateral source.
Fla.Stat. Sec. 627.7372(1) (1983) (emphasis added). 1
This statute permits the admission into evidence of only past payments of benefits, those already received by the plaintiff; it does not allow evidence of payments to be made in the future. Jeep Corp. v. Walker, 528 So.2d 1203, 1206 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988). There is no indication whatsoever that the Florida Supreme Court would decide this issue differently. See Fla. Physician's Ins. Reciprocal v. Stanley, 452 So.2d 514, 515 (Fla.1984) (). Thus, the trial court did not err in granting plaintiffs' motion in limine and excluding evidence of disability payments to be made in the future.
Defendant argues that she should have been able to introduce payments made in the past despite the plaintiffs having waived their claims for past medical expenses, past lost wages and property damage to the golf cart, all the expenses for which they had received collateral source payments. Since evidence of collateral source payments is allowed only to establish a set-off for damages awarded for the same expenses, defendant's argument has no merit and was rejected by this Court in Ganley v. United States, 878 F.2d 1351, 1355 & n. 6 (11th Cir.1989). As long as the plaintiffs do not seek to recover for expenses already covered by collateral source payments, evidence of those past payments is simply irrelevant to any issue before the court. Id. See also Purdy v. Gulf Breeze Enters., 403 So.2d 1325, 1329 (Fla.1981) (). Therefore, the district court properly precluded evidence of all collateral source payments paid to the plaintiffs.
A directed verdict is appropriate only when the evidence is such that, without weighing the credibility of witnesses, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict. Brady v. Southern Ry. Co., 320 U.S. 476, 479-80, 64 S.Ct. 232, 234, 88 L.Ed. 239 (1943). On appeal from an order granting a motion for directed verdict, we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Pelletier v. Stuart-James Co., 863 F.2d 1550, 1554 (11th Cir.1989).
Dr. Shessel was injured when Mrs. Calhoun's car struck the golf cart Dr. Shessel was driving. The road on which they were traveling was a private road in a resort complex. There was conflicting evidence as to whether golf carts were required at night to be operated on the roadway or the golf cart paths which ran alongside the road. There was further testimony tending to prove that, at the time of the accident, Dr. Shessel was operating his golf cart without a headlight, even though it was dark.
A reasonable view of this evidence could be that Dr. Shessel, in driving his cart without a light and on the main road rather than on the cart path, contributed substantially to the accident that occurred. Accordingly, the trial court erred in directing a verdict for Dr. Shessel on the issue of his comparative negligence. Morrison v. C.J. Jones Lumber Co., 126 So.2d 895, 896-97 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1961) (); Ellison v. Cribb, 271 So.2d 174, 176-77 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1972) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc.
...the two counts are sufficiently interwoven and intertwined so as to require a new trial on both counts. See, e.g., Shessel v. Murphy, 920 F.2d 784, 787 (11th Cir.1991); FIGA v. R.V.M.P. Corp., 874 F.2d 1528, 1534 (11th Cir.1989). Therefore, we vacate the judgment of the district court as to......
-
United States ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Int'l Constr., Inc.
...separated from the question of whether defendants joined that conspiracy, and counsel in favor of a full retrial. See Shessel v. Murphy, 920 F.2d 784, 787 (11th Cir.1991) (directing full retrial where error below could have affected jury's consideration of other issues). Turning to the dama......
-
Odom v. Carney
...jury has not compensated plaintiff for medical expenses. We thus quite agree with the holding of the federal court in Shessel v. Murphy, 920 F.2d 784 (11th Cir.1991), and Ganley v. United States, 878 F.2d 1351 (11th Cir.1989), that there must first be an award by the jury of damages for whi......