Dade County v. Ware

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dade County v. Ware

295 So. 2d 360, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7098

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 28, 1974

DocketNo. 73-1445

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 So. 2d 360 (Dade County v. Ware) 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

Dade County v. Ware, 295 So. 2d 360, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7098 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Dade County as the Metro Transit Authority was defendant in an action for personal injuries by the appellee. The injury occurred on a transit authority bus. The points presented on this appeal from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict for the plaintiff claim 1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, 2) that the trial court erred in failing to grant defendant’s motion for a mistrial, and 3) that the trial judge erred in denying a proffer of testimony by defendant.

We hold that in each instance no error has been shown. As to the sufficiency of the evidence, the record reveals evidence which if believed by the jury would prove the driver’s actual knowledge of the foreign substance on the floor of the bus. In addition, the nature of the substance which the appellee testified caused her fall was such as to indicate that it would have been discovered if the bus had been cleaned before being placed in service. Cf. Scaccia v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 317 Mass. 245, 57 N.E.2d 761 (1944). As to the denial of the motion for mistrial, see Clark v. Yellow Cab Company of Miami, Fla.App. 1967, 195 So.2d 39. No error appears upon the denial of appellant’s proffer. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Robinson, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 406.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Dade County as the Metro Transit Authority was defendant in an action for personal injuries by the appellee. The injury occurred on a transit authority bus. The points presented on this appeal from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict for the plaintiff claim 1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, 2) that the trial court erred in failing to grant defendant’s motion for a mistrial, and 3) that the trial judge erred in denying a proffer of testimony by defendant.

We hold that in each instance no error has been shown. As to the sufficiency of the evidence, the record reveals evidence which if believed by the jury would prove the driver’s actual knowledge of the foreign substance on the floor of the bus. In addition, the nature of the substance which the appellee testified caused her fall was such as to indicate that it would have been discovered if the bus had been cleaned before being placed in service. Cf. Scaccia v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 317 Mass. 245, 57 N.E.2d 761 (1944). As to the denial of the motion for mistrial, see Clark v. Yellow Cab Company of Miami, Fla.App. 1967, 195 So.2d 39. No error appears upon the denial of appellant’s proffer. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Robinson, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 406.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 So. 2d 360, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dade-county-v-ware-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack