Farmer v. B. F. Goodrich Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Farmer v. B. F. Goodrich Co.

252 So. 2d 593, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6045

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 22, 1971

DocketNo. 70-433

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 252 So. 2d 593 (Farmer v. B. F. Goodrich Co.) 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

Farmer v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 252 So. 2d 593, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6045 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

HOBSON, Judge.

Appellants appeal a final judgment entered against them for damages suffered due to appellee’s breach of warranty.

The sole point on appeal is whether or not it is reversible error to admit into evidence a pamphlet which is admittedly hearsay.

We have carefully reviewed the record and it is quite clear that even if the admission of the pamphlet was error it was harmless error. Two expert witnesses testified independently that under-inflation or overloading, or both, caused the tire in question to blow out and that there was no manufacturing defect in the tire. These two experts were produced by the appellee, whose attorney had used the pamphlet. The only other expert, who was the appellants’ witness, could not testify as to what caused the tire to blow out nor whether there was a manufacturing defect.

It is apparent that the pamphlet was merely cumulative of the evidence presented to the jury by the experts and clearly falls within Florida Statute § 59.041, F.S.A., commonly known as the harmless error statute.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.

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

HOBSON, Judge.

Appellants appeal a final judgment entered against them for damages suffered due to appellee’s breach of warranty.

The sole point on appeal is whether or not it is reversible error to admit into evidence a pamphlet which is admittedly hearsay.

We have carefully reviewed the record and it is quite clear that even if the admission of the pamphlet was error it was harmless error. Two expert witnesses testified independently that under-inflation or overloading, or both, caused the tire in question to blow out and that there was no manufacturing defect in the tire. These two experts were produced by the appellee, whose attorney had used the pamphlet. The only other expert, who was the appellants’ witness, could not testify as to what caused the tire to blow out nor whether there was a manufacturing defect.

It is apparent that the pamphlet was merely cumulative of the evidence presented to the jury by the experts and clearly falls within Florida Statute § 59.041, F.S.A., commonly known as the harmless error statute.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 So. 2d 593, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmer-v-b-f-goodrich-co-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack