ALOYSIA WOOD AND DANIEL WOOD, APPELLANTS,
v.
WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., D/B/A DISNEY WORLD, INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, ROUSE BRAKE & WHEEL INC., AND MERLIN, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO., A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Aloysia Wood suffered back injuries at Disney World's Grand Prix Raceway when struck by another car. The trial court excluded evidence of subsequent similar accidents at the same attraction, which the appellate court held was error, requiring reversal and remand as to Disney World while affirming judgment as to other defendants.
Evidence of subsequent similar accidents is admissible to show the dangerous character of a place and the defendant's knowledge thereof, provided the incidents are not too remote in time. The trial court's categorical exclusion of all subsequent incidents was error, though the trial court retains discretion in these matters.
[1] Evidence of subsequent similar accidents at or near the same place are admissible to show the dangerous character of the place and the defendant's knowledge thereof, if n…
[2] A trial court errs by excluding all evidence of subsequent incidents when such evidence is offered to establish a dangerous condition.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is well settled that evidence of prior or subsequent similar accidents at or near the same place are admissible if they are not too remote in time, for the purpose of showing the dangerous character of the place and defendants' knowledge thereof.”
Establishes the governing legal standard permitting evidence of similar accidents to demonstrate a dangerous condition
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 27, 1971, Aloysia Wood was injured while riding in a miniature race car at Disney World's Grand Prix Raceway when struck from behind by an…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Dangerous Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
Appellant suffered back injuries on November 27, 1971, during a Thanksgiving holiday weekend visit to Disney World. The injuries were sustained while she was riding in a miniature race car with her son at the attraction known as the Grand Prix Raceway when her car was struck from behind by another car. Following'this accident, she had several subsequent accidents which aggravated her back injuries. Because the injuries and the subsequent aggravation of the injuries were difficult to apportion among the various tortfeasors, she brought a single action against them all. During the trial she settled her claims with all of the defendants except Walt Disney World Co., Rouse Brake & Wheel, Inc., Merlin Co., and their respective insurers. The jury found for the defendants and this appeal followed.
The only error we perceive requiring reversal of the final judgment involves Walt Disney World Co., and its insurer. We affirm the final judgment as to the remaining parties. The specific error which we find to be harmful is the trial court's refusal to admit into evidence any reports of subsequent incidents involving injuries sustained by persons in the cars at the Grand Prix Raceway which were offered into evidence to establish the dangerous condition of the raceway.1 The trial court made a specific distinction between prior and subsequent incidents, holding subsequent incidents to be inadmissible. We disagree and hold that while the trial court has discretion in this matter, exclusions of all subsequent incidents was error. In Chambers v. Loftin, 67 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1953), the court said:
It is well settled that evidence of prior or subsequent similar accidents at or near the same place are admissible if they are not too remote in time, for the purpose of showing the dangerous character of the place and defendants’ knowledge thereof.
More recently, in Reese v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company, 360 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. dismissed 366 So. 2d 884 (Fla.1978), we held that it was error to exclude evidence of the railroad’s warning signal operation on the day following the accident. See also Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Hawes, 269 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), cert. denied 272 So. 2d 816 (Fla.1973).
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment as to Walt Disney World Co. and its insurer, remand for new trial as to these same defendants, and affirm as to the remaining parties.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
HURLEY, J., concurs.
MOORE, J., dissents with opinion.
. Unknown to the trial court at the time of its ruling, two of the excluded reports actually involved incidents occurring prior to appellant’s accident.
MOORE, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the error if any, was harmless.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anne E. Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…sar Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Bachanov, 436 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Reinhart v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 422 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Hessey, 421 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Wood v. Walt Disney World Co., 396 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Corbett v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 375 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1202 (Fla.1980); Warn Industries v. Geist, 343 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 680 (Fla.1977); Seaboard Co…
-
Rodriguez v. Loxahatchee Groves Water Control Mgmt. Dist., 636 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…signal-ling system. See, e.g., Lawrence, 346 So. 2d at 1012; Halum, 571 So. 2d at 515. In conclusion on this point, it was reversible error for the trial court to exclude, ultimately, all other accident evidence. See Wood v. Walt Disney World Co., 396 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In granting a new trial, the trial court relied upon an erroneous presumption of law, i.e., that showing the roadway system was deficient and that other vehicles had gone into the canals did not constitute sufficient similarity…
-
Y.H. Invs., Inc. v. Godales, 690 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1997)…opted the principle in Love v. Gibson, 2 Fla. 598 (1849). . This Court adopted the principle of joint and several liability in Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Allen, 67 Fla. 257, 65 So. 8 (1914). . The accident in Wood v. Walt Disney World Co., 396 So. 2d 769, 770 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), took place on November 27, 1971. The lengthy course of litigation included an initial trial, an appeal to the Fourth District which reversed and remanded the case, a re-trial, another appeal, and finally, review by this Cou…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chambers v. Loftin, 67 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1953)
- Reese v. Seaboard Coastline R.R. Co., 360 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- C. Wallace Indus., Inc. v. State of Fla. for the use & benefit of Suncoast Equip. Rental Serv., Inc., 269 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. v. Lowell Lee Hawes, 269 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Abe Grossinger v. Nat'l Indus. Bank OF Miami, 272 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1973)
- City OF Hope v. Levin, 272 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1973)