Tabasky v. Dreyfuss
| Decision Date | 04 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-330,76-330 |
| Citation | 350 So.2d 520 |
| Parties | Jason TABASKY, Appellant, v. Karen DREYFUSS and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kuvin, Klingensmith & Lewis and R. Fred Lewis, Coconut Grove, for appellant.
Talburt, Kubicki & Bradley and Robert J. Dickman, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and HAVERFIELD and HUBBART, JJ.
Plaintiff, Jason Tabasky, appeals a $7,000 final judgment entered in his favor pursuant to a jury verdict in an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident.
Tabasky was injured when a car driven by defendant, Karen Dreyfuss, collided with his car at an intersection. Following the collision, Dreyfuss' liability insurer, Allstate Insurance Company, sent an investigator to interview the only non-party eye witness to the accident, Virginia Webster, who had been driving behind the Tabasky car prior to the accident, and the investigator reduced to a memorandum Webster's statement of what occurred. Tabasky filed suit against Dreyfuss and Allstate alleging Dreyfuss was negligent in that she ran the red light. Dreyfuss answered alleging that Tabasky ran the red light, not she. Pretrial discovery ensued and during Webster's deposition, the investigator's memorandum was identified, and Webster was questioned about its contents. At time of trial Webster's deposition was admitted into evidence because she had moved to Georgia. When defense counsel began to read Webster's cross-examination deposition testimony into the record, he also moved to offer the investigator's memorandum into evidence. Tabasky's counsel objected as follows and the court overruled the objection:
At the conclusion of trial, the jury was instructed on comparative negligence. After deliberating, the jury returned with a $7,000 verdict for Tabasky. Tabasky's counsel then filed a motion for new trial on the ground, inter alia, that the court erred in allowing defense counsel to introduce the investigator's memorandum into evidence because it was hearsay. The motion was denied and judgment was entered in accordance with the jury's verdict.
Plaintiff Tabasky contends that the trial court erred in admitting the investigator's memorandum into evidence because it was hearsay and substantive evidence.
An appellate court will consider the grounds or objections to the admissibility of evidence as were specifically made in the trial court and cannot consider those objections to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marks v. Delcastillo
...trial precludes appellate review of the propriety of its admission. McSwain v. Howell, 29 Fla. 248, 10 So. 588 (1892); Tabasky v. Dreyfuss, 350 So.2d 520 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). Moreover, the fundamental error exception to this rule does not apply, since an alleged evidentiary error of this kind......
-
Tallahassee Furniture Co., Inc. v. Harrison
...stated at trial, and will not consider those objections to admissibility urged for the first time on appeal. Tabasky v. Dreyfuss, 350 So.2d 520, 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We have reviewed the record and find no objection on any grounds to the testimony of Professor White regarding his intervi......
-
Maddry v. State, 90-1859
...Chaudoin v. State, 118 So.2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Jennings v. Stewart, 308 So.2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and Tabasky v. Dreyfuss, 350 So.2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Here, the record clearly reflects that appellant's only arguments below against the admissibility of the challenged evidence......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gisela Investments, N.V.
...1259 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Swan v. Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Co., 404 So.2d 802, 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Tabasky v. Dreyfuss, 350 So.2d 520, 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Flitman, 234 So.2d 390, 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Coin-O-Mat,......