Wingate v. New Deal Cab Co.

Decision Date14 January 1969
Docket NumberNo. K--3,K--3
Citation217 So.2d 612
PartiesDarrell W. WINGATE, Appellant, v. NEW DEAL CAB COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Searcy & Sohn, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay, Jacksonville, for appellee.


Plaintiff appeals from a final judgment entered pursuant to an adverse jury verdict in an action arising out of a vehicular collision.

The collision occurred at the intersection of the Twentieth Street Expressway and Wilson Street in Duval County, Florida. Appellant was driving east on the expressway and appellee's taxicab was going in a northerly direction on Wilson Street. The latter was a 'stop street', being so by virtue of a stop sign erected on the right side of the street just before it entered its intersection with the expressway and also by virtue of the word 'stop' being lettered on the street surface just before the intersection. The collision occurred around 10:00 A.M. and the record is devoid of any evidence of bad weather or visibility problems.

It is apparent from an examination of the record, briefs, and argument of counsel that the crucial fact around which the jury's determination of its verdict revolves is the speed at which appellant was traveling at the time of this collision. Appellant testified that he was only going 40 to 45 miles per hour which was permissible in that zone. Appellee's driver testified that appellant was traveling 60 to 70 miles per hour and that at the time he went into the intersection appellant was a quarter mile away so that he thought he had plenty of time to get on across the east bound lanes of the expressway. The taxi driver stated that he had stopped, looked both ways, and determined that he had ample time to cross before he entered the expressway. He further ascribed his inability to complete the crossing of the expressway traffic lanes to the fact that the taxicab stalled as it was traversing the expressway and came to a standstill in the appellant's path. None of the other witnesses who were present at the time of the collision were able to corroborate the evidence of stalling.

At the time of the collision, the plaintiff was alone in his car. The taxi had two passengers, both of whom testified. One of the passengers in the taxi, Ruby Lewis, had given a written statement to the plaintiff's attorney on the night before the trial in which she stated the following:

'On January 7, 1967, I was in an accident while a passenger in the rear seat of a cab. The cab stopped before it entered the expressway. The cab was going slow and still moving when it was hit on the left side by another car. I saw the other car just a split second before the accident and I could not correctly estimate the speed. The accident happened a second or two after the cab entered the intersection.'

After the witness who gave the foregoing statement testified at the trial as a witness for the defense that the plaintiff was traveling at 75 miles per hour, the plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to introduce her statement above set out for the purpose of demonstrating to the jury that although she testified to 75 miles per hour at the trial, the night before she had stated in a carefully read statement that she could not correctly estimate the speed of plaintiff's vehicle. The trial court did permit the introduction in evidence of only that portion of the statement...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Resnick v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 7, 1973
    ...another way previously is blowing hot and cold and raises a doubt as to the truthfulness of Both statements. Wingate v. New Deal Cab Company, 217 So.2d 612 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1969), citing McCormack on Evidence, p. 63; See also Urga v. State, 104 So.2d 43 (2d The entire question of prior contra......
  • State v. Gilmore
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • November 23, 1977
    ...People v. Roach, 148 Cal.App.2d 364, 306 P.2d 523, 526; Diebold v. People, 175 Colo. 96, 485 P.2d 900, 902; Wingate v. New Deal Cab Company, 217 So.2d 612, 614 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1969); Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. v. Lewis, 326 Ill.App. 84, 61 N.E.2d 290, 293; People v. Saunders, 132 Ill.App.......
  • Ciambrone v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corrs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • November 29, 2021
    ...nor “disproportionate to the purposes [it] [is] designed to serve.” Scheffer, 17 523 U.S. at 308. Wingate v. New Deal Cab Co., 217 So.2d 612, 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969) explains: The reason underlying a party's right to counteract witness's trial testimony as to a material fact with the introd......
  • Rockerman v. State, 1D00-1092.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 6, 2000
    ...Mr. Rockerman acted in self-defense, but only to show that Mr. McFarland was not to be believed. See generally Wingate v. New Deal Cab Co., 217 So.2d 612, 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969). The defense nevertheless requested that the jury be instructed on the affirmative defense of justifiable use of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT