Anderson v. Downing

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anderson v. Downing

146 So. 2d 622, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 2931

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 26, 1962

DocketNo. 61-575

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 146 So. 2d 622 (Anderson v. Downing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Downing, 146 So. 2d 622, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 2931 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant in a personal injury action suffered a verdict and judgment in the amount of $45,000 in the trial court. Upon this appeal he presents two points: (1) the court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant, and (2) the court erred in giving an instruction upon the doctrine of last clear chance.

Appellant’s argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence hinges upon his contention that the testimony of an expert witness presented by the plaintiff was improperly admitted over objection. We are inclined to the view that the testimony of the expert was incompetent in that it amounted to a conclusion for which sufficient predicate was not set forth. Myers v. Korbly, Fla.App. 1958, 103 So.2d 215. But a review of the record reveals that there was sufficient evidence to require the case to go to the jury even if the expert testimony had been excluded. The appellant did not present a point or argue an assignment directed to the denial of its-motion for a new trial upon the ground of improperly admitted expert testimony.

The appellant further argues that the trial court improperly gave plaintiff’s requested instruction upon the doctrine of last clear chance. In this case the giving of the instruction was proper because the evidence as presented to the jury was susceptible of a determination which could make the doctrine applicable. James v. Keene, Fla.1961, 133 So.2d 297; Huff v. Belcastro, Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 476; Radtke v. Loud, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 891.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The defendant in a personal injury action suffered a verdict and judgment in the amount of $45,000 in the trial court. Upon this appeal he presents two points: (1) the court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant, and (2) the court erred in giving an instruction upon the doctrine of last clear chance.

Appellant’s argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence hinges upon his contention that the testimony of an expert witness presented by the plaintiff was improperly admitted over objection. We are inclined to the view that the testimony of the expert was incompetent in that it amounted to a conclusion for which sufficient predicate was not set forth. Myers v. Korbly, Fla.App. 1958, 103 So.2d 215. But a review of the record reveals that there was sufficient evidence to require the case to go to the jury even if the expert testimony had been excluded. The appellant did not present a point or argue an assignment directed to the denial of its-motion for a new trial upon the ground of improperly admitted expert testimony.

The appellant further argues that the trial court improperly gave plaintiff’s requested instruction upon the doctrine of last clear chance. In this case the giving of the instruction was proper because the evidence as presented to the jury was susceptible of a determination which could make the doctrine applicable. James v. Keene, Fla.1961, 133 So.2d 297; Huff v. Belcastro, Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 476; Radtke v. Loud, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 891.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 So. 2d 622, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 2931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-downing-fladistctapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack