Jones v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jones v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

566 So. 2d 546, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5852, 1990 WL 111940

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jones v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10505 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 8, 1990·No. No. 89-0152·Published

Opinion

STONE, Judge.

We affirm a judgment, following a defense verdict, in an action for personal injuries. The appellants contend that claims of their past litigiousness became a feature of the trial. See generally O’Shea v. Jewel Tea Co., 233 F.2d 530 (7th Cir.1956); Zabner v. Howard Johnson’s Inc. of Florida, 227 So.2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Davidson v. Eddings, 262 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 269 So.2d 371 (Fla.1972); Hicks v. Daymude, 190 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Shalley v. Fiore, 161 So.2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 166 So.2d 754 (Fla.1964). Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the court designed its rulings on evidence to allow only limited relevant impeachment concerning prior litigation involving injury to the same parts of the plaintiffs body. We recognize that the court admitted and the jury heard some irrelevant evidence. However, plaintiff brought out some of the irrelevant matters, did not object to others, and the balance were harmless or cumulative. Overall we find no unfair prejudice arising out of the court’s rulings; nor did the court abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion for mistrial or appellants’ motion for new trial.

AFFIRMED.

LETTS, J., concurs. DELL, J., dissents without opinion.

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

STONE, Judge.

We affirm a judgment, following a defense verdict, in an action for personal injuries. The appellants contend that claims of their past litigiousness became a feature of the trial. See generally O’Shea v. Jewel Tea Co., 233 F.2d 530 (7th Cir.1956); Zabner v. Howard Johnson’s Inc. of Florida, 227 So.2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Davidson v. Eddings, 262 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 269 So.2d 371 (Fla.1972); Hicks v. Daymude, 190 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Shalley v. Fiore, 161 So.2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 166 So.2d 754 (Fla.1964). Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the court designed its rulings on evidence to allow only limited relevant impeachment concerning prior litigation involving injury to the same parts of the plaintiffs body. We recognize that the court admitted and the jury heard some irrelevant evidence. However, plaintiff brought out some of the irrelevant matters, did not object to others, and the balance were harmless or cumulative. Overall we find no unfair prejudice arising out of the court’s rulings; nor did the court abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion for mistrial or appellants’ motion for new trial.

AFFIRMED.

LETTS, J., concurs. DELL, J., dissents without opinion.

Jones v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 566 So. 2d 546, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5852, 1990 WL 111940 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

566 So. 2d 546 (Jones v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related