Williams v. Pincombe, 73--985
| Decision Date | 14 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--985,73--985 |
| Parties | Daisy M. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. John R. PINCOMBE and H.O.J. National Leasing Ltd., a Foreign Corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nolan Carter, of Carter, Anstine, Martin & Barnett, Orlando, for appellant.
W. Marvin Hardy, III, of Gurney, Gurney & Handley, Orlando, for appellees.
Appellant-plaintiff, Daisy M. Williams, appeals a final judgment entered in favor of appellees-defendants, John R. Pincombe and H.O.J. National Leasing, Ltd., in a cause of action seeking damages resulting from an automobile accident. We reverse.
On March 23, 1972, Daisy M. Williams, was injured in an automobile accident when the automobile she was driving was struck by an automobile owned by defendant, H.O.J. Leasing, Ltd., and operated by defendant, John R. Pincombe.
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants. Trial was by jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants, and the trial court entered a final judgment accordingly. It is from this final judgment that the plaintiff appeals.
The sole question for our determination is whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence that the plaintiff had been receiving since 1970 welfare benefits for her children for the purpose of rebutting the plaintiff's testimony regarding her motivation to return to work.
A similar question was presented to the Third District Court of Appeal in Cook v. Eney, 277 So.2d 848 (Fla.App.1973), a medical malpractice suit. In Cook, evidence was admitted at trial that social security and workmen's compensation benefits inured to the injured victim as a result of his injuries for the limited purpose of impeaching testimony concerning the victim's desire to return to work. Our sister court in Cook determined that the evidence of the victim's receipt of insurance-type benefits was not material in a liability suit against a tortfeasor and was not a proper consideration for the jury; that such evidence tended to confuse and mislead the jury on the issue of the tortfeasor's liability and its admission at trial constituted error prejudicial to the victim; and that insofar as the evidence bears on the issue of malingering, our sister court concluded that there generally will be other evidence having more probative value and involving less likelihood of prejudice than the victim's receipt of insurance-type benefits.
Turning to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co.
...458. See also Parker v. Hoppock, 695 So.2d 424, 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), review denied, 707 So.2d 1126 (Fla.1998); Williams v. Pincombe, 309 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Cook v. Eney, 277 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). We are not concerned here with a situation like the one that ob......
-
Stanley By and Through Stanley v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., AH-500
...have led the jury to believe that appellant was trying to obtain a double or triple payment for one injury."); Williams v. Pincombe, 309 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) ("Such evidence [of welfare benefits] had the tendency to confuse and mislead the jury on the issue of the defendant's li......
-
Gormley v. GTE Products Corp.
...of whether plaintiff suffered permanent injury); Clark v. Tampa Electric Co., 416 So.2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Williams v. Pincombe, 309 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) ("Such evidence had the tendency to confuse and mislead the jury on the issue of the defendant's liability and its admis......
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ashe
...2d DCA 1982) (reversible error to admit evidence that plaintiff's hospital bill was paid by workers' compensation); Williams v. Pincombe, 309 So.2d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (reversible error to admit evidence of plaintiff's receipt of welfare benefits, even for the purpose of impeaching motiv......