Wood v. Walt Disney World Co., 79-101
| Decision Date | 25 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-101,79-101 |
| Parties | Aloysia WOOD and Daniel Wood, Appellants, v. WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., d/b/a Disney World, Insurance Company of North America, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Rouse Brake & Wheel Inc., and Merlin, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., a Connecticut Corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Simons & Schlesinger, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, and Walter H. Beckham, Jr., and Joel D. Eaton of Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, P. A., Miami, for appellants.
John H. Ward and John L. O'Donnell, Jr., of DeWolf, Ward, Morris, Wohlust, Jontz & O'Donnell, Orlando, for appellee, Walt Disney World Co.
Pyszka, Kessler & Adams, Fort Lauderdale, Bonnie Lee Daniels, Miami, and Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellees, Rouse Brake & Wheel, Inc., Merlin, Inc., and Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.
Appellant suffered back injuries on November 27, 1971, during a Thanksgiving holiday weekend visit to Disney World. The injuries were sustained while she was riding in a miniature race car with her son at the attraction known as the Grand Prix Raceway when her car was struck from behind by another car. Following this accident, she had several subsequent accidents which aggravated her back injuries. Because the injuries and the subsequent aggravation of the injuries were difficult to apportion among the various tortfeasors, she brought a single action against them all. During the trial she settled her claims with all of the defendants except Walt Disney World Co., Rouse Brake & Wheel, Inc., Merlin Co., and their respective insurers. The jury found for the defendants and this appeal followed.
The only error we perceive requiring reversal of the final judgment involves Walt Disney World Co., and its insurer. We affirm the final judgment as to the remaining parties. The specific error which we find to be harmful is the trial court's refusal to admit into evidence any reports of subsequent incidents involving injuries sustained by persons in the cars at the Grand Prix Raceway which were offered into evidence to establish the dangerous condition of the raceway. 1 The trial court made a specific distinction between prior and subsequent incidents, holding subsequent incidents to be inadmissible. We disagree and hold that while the trial court has discretion in this matter, exclusions of all subsequent incidents was error.
In Chambers v. Loftin, 67 So.2d 220 (Fla.1953), the court said:
It is well settled that evidence of prior or subsequent similar accidents at or near the same place are admissible if they are not too remote in time, for the purpose of showing the dangerous character of the place...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ebach v. Ralston
...the premises at the time of an accident. Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Whitt, 575 So.2d 1011 (Ala.1990); Wood v. Walt Disney World Co., 396 So.2d 769 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Dudley v. County of Saratoga, 145 A.D.2d 689, 535 N.Y.S.2d 231 (N.Y.App.Div.1988); Wright v. Commonwealth of Pe......
-
Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
...Railroad Co., 422 So.2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Hessey, 421 So.2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Wood v. Walt Disney World Co., 396 So.2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Corbett v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 375 So.2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1202 (Fla.1980......
-
Rodriguez v. Loxahatchee Groves Water Control Management Dist., 92-3583
...this point, it was reversible error for the trial court to exclude, ultimately, all other accident evidence. See Wood v. Walt Disney World Co., 396 So.2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In granting a new trial, the trial court relied upon an erroneous presumption of law, i.e., that showing the roa......
-
Glanzberg v. Kauffman
...condition. The trial court abused its discretion in excluding it. See Chambers, 67 So.2d at 220, cited in Wood v. Walt Disney World Co., 396 So.2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Glanzberg also challenges the trial court's exclusion of subsequent remedial measure evidence. Evidence of subsequent r......