Connell v. Riggins
This text of 820 So. 2d 1076 (Connell v. Riggins) 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.
Opinion
Robert Carter CONNELL, and Connell & Son, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellants,
v.
Mary RIGGINS and Bruce Riggins, individually, and Mary Riggins, as Guardian of the person and property of Caleb Riggins, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Stephen E. Day, and Rhonda B. Boggess, of Taylor, Day & Currie, Jacksonville, for Appellants.
Fletcher Farrington, Savannah, Georgia; Robert F. Spohrer and Steven R. Browning, of Spohrer, Wilner, Maxwell & Matthews, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants Robert Carter Connell and Connell & Son, Inc. argue that the trial court erred by (i) granting the appellees' motion for new trial, and (ii) admitting a driver's manual as evidence of the standard of care required when approaching a yellow flashing traffic light. We affirm the trial court's granting of appellee's motion for new trial because there was no abuse of discretion. However, we agree with appellants that the driver's manual should not have been admitted into evidence. See Sikes v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 429 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)(ruling that driver's handbook should not have been admitted into evidence).
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part.
DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
820 So. 2d 1076, 2002 WL 1539596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connell-v-riggins-fladistctapp-2002.