PENSACOLA & ATLANTIC RAILROAD CO., APPELLANT,
v.
ANDERSON & PECK, 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.
A railroad company appealed a jury verdict awarding $400 in damages for injuries to plaintiffs' horses caused by a train accident. The court affirmed, holding that even if certain witness testimony about the conductor's attempt to shift blame was inadmissible, the error was harmless because substantial other evidence supported the verdict.
The court held that even if the testimony was inadmissible, the error was harmless because abundant other evidence supported the verdict, and the railroad company could not have been prejudiced by the admission of evidence when it could not have stood better with the jury had the evidence been excluded.
“the rule is that the admission of incompetent testimony is no cause for granting a new trial, if it appear that the party objecting could not have possibly stood better with the jury had the evidence been excluded”
Establishes the harmless error doctrine applicable to inadmissible testimony
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs owned horses that were damaged in an accident involving the defendant railroad company's train near Pensacola. A jury found for the pla…
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 Motion To Strike Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Mitchell, J.
The plaintiffs in the court below, (appellees here), instituted suit in the Circuit Court against the defendant railroad company, to recover damages to certain horses belonging to plaintiffs, caused by an accident to de fendant’s train near Pensacola. The issues in the case were submitted to a jury, who found for plaintiffs and assessed their damages at $400, and the case comes here upon appeal.
Several errors are assigned, but only one of them is insisted upon, and for this reason we will treat .the remaining assignments as abandoned. The error insisted upon is as to the admissibility of certain evidence, which it is contended is illegal and calculated to prejudice the jury against the defendant.
In answer to interrogatories propounded to him, Joel Peck, a witness for the plaintiffs, among other things, says: “ The conductor on the train came to me and asked me to sign a statement that he (the conductor) was not to be blamed for the accident, but that the engineer was to bear the blame, as he did not call for brakes. I refused to sign the statement.” The defendant moved to strike out this part of Peck’s testimony, but the Court overruled the motion, and the overruling of the motion is insisted upon as being erroneous.
If the evidence of Peck should be entirely excluded from the case, there would still remain abundant evidence to support the verdict, and consequently, the defendant could not have been injured by the refusal to strike out the evidence objected to, for the rule is that the admission of incompetent testimony is no cause for granting a new trial, if it appear that the party objecting could not have possibly stood better with the jury had the evidence been excluded. Bridier vs. Yulee, 9 Fla.., 481. Nor will a new trial be granted because improper evidence has been admitted, if the fact sought to be proved is amply shown by other evidence, and it is plain that the jury were not misled, (Tilly vs. State, 21 Fla., 242,) and especially is this the case when there is no conflict in the evidence. Simmons, et al. vs. Spratt, decided at the present term of the court, and cases there cited.
The judgment of the Court below is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parker v. Perfection Coop. Dairies, 102 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…imit at the time of the collision. The driver Albert William Parker, Jr., admitted at the trial that he was exceeding the speed limit, so if there was error in the admission of the testimony, it was harmless error. Pensacola & A. R. Co. v. Anderson, 26 Fla. 425, 8 So. 127. The plaintiffs also complained of the refusal of the lower court to permit a member of the Orlando Police Department to testify as to the probable speed or category of speed of the Parker automobile just prior to the involved collision,…
-
First Nat'l Bank in Orlando v. Roberts, 92 Fla. 18 (Fla. 1926)…was immaterial but we cannot say that it was misleading. A new trial will not be granted because immaterial evidence was introduced, unless the jury appears to have been misled. Tilly vs. State, 21 Fla. 242; Pensacola A. & P. R. R. Co. v. Anderson, 26 Fla. 425, 8 South. Rep. 127. We have examined the charges given by the Court and those refused and are unable to say that the jury was misled as to the law in this ease by any charge given or that any injustice was done the plaintiff in error by the [*22] C…
-
Bucki v. Seitz, 39 Fla. 55 (Fla. 1897)…of illegal. evidence to prove a fact which is fully established by other and legal evidence in the canse, it being clear that the ver•dict was not influenced|thereby. Tilly vs. State, 21 Fla. 242; Pensacola & Atlantic R. R. Co. vs. Anderson & Peck, 26 Fla. 425, 8 South. Rep. 127; Tischler vs. Apple & Finley, 30 Fla. 132, 11 South. Rep. 273; Roof vs. Chattanooga Wood Split Pulley Co., 36 Fla. 284, 18 South Rep. 597. Several assignments of error are based upon rulings •of the court admitting evidence objec…
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
- Tilly v. State, 21 Fla. 242 (Fla. 1885)