Smith v. Courtesy Car Rental & Sales, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. Courtesy Car Rental & Sales, Inc.

696 So. 2d 1228, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6152, 1997 WL 291947

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 4, 1997

DocketNo. 95-3971

StatusPublished

This text of 696 So. 2d 1228 (Smith v. Courtesy Car Rental & Sales, Inc.) 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

Smith v. Courtesy Car Rental & Sales, Inc., 696 So. 2d 1228, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6152, 1997 WL 291947 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defense verdict in this accident case, rejecting the plaintiffs argument that the trial court erred in permitting impeachment on a collateral issue. The impeachment concerned a prior claim made by plaintiff for exposure to a toxic chemical, and there was evidence in that claim that he had been faking his injuries in an attempt to gain compensation.

A psychologist who had examined plaintiff for the injuries plaintiff was claiming as a result of this accident had reviewed and considered the records involved in the prior claim in rendering his opinion. Although the trial court may have allowed defense counsel too much leeway in attacking plaintiffs credibility in regard to the prior claim, we find any error in that regard to be harmless in light of the ample evidence impeaching plaintiffs credibility contained in the records examined by the psychologist, which were relevant and could be inquired about on cross-examination.

We have considered the other issues raised by plaintiff and find them to be without merit. We therefore affirm.

GLICKSTEIN, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defense verdict in this accident case, rejecting the plaintiffs argument that the trial court erred in permitting impeachment on a collateral issue. The impeachment concerned a prior claim made by plaintiff for exposure to a toxic chemical, and there was evidence in that claim that he had been faking his injuries in an attempt to gain compensation.

A psychologist who had examined plaintiff for the injuries plaintiff was claiming as a result of this accident had reviewed and considered the records involved in the prior claim in rendering his opinion. Although the trial court may have allowed defense counsel too much leeway in attacking plaintiffs credibility in regard to the prior claim, we find any error in that regard to be harmless in light of the ample evidence impeaching plaintiffs credibility contained in the records examined by the psychologist, which were relevant and could be inquired about on cross-examination.

We have considered the other issues raised by plaintiff and find them to be without merit. We therefore affirm.

GLICKSTEIN, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 So. 2d 1228, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6152, 1997 WL 291947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-courtesy-car-rental-sales-inc-fladistctapp-1997.