HAMMIL LEE NICHOLSON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
BEN'S SELTZER, INC., AND JOHN LEE BROWN, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1972-05-16
No. 71-1013
Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ., and NESBITT, JOSEPH, Associate Judge.
262 So. 2d 466 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1972) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error regarding the application of estoppel by judgment, expert witness testimony, or traffic ordinances.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sued for personal injuries sustained when his driver rear-ended a truck. The plaintiff's driver had previously sued the same defendants and …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant Hammil Lee Nicholson, Jr. (passenger) seeks review of an adverse final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of defendant-appel-lees John Lee Brown (truck driver) and Ben’s Seltzer Inc., (truck owner and employer). Appellant sued in the Circuit Court of Dade County to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when his driver William T. Markey rear-ended the truck, allegedly negligently driven by Brown and owned by Seltzer, on the MacArthur Causeway connecting Miami with Miami Beach.

It appears that William T. Markey had prevailed in a personal injury action against Seltzer and Brown tried by another judge in the Circuit Court of Dade County. By motion for summary judgment and otherwise, appellant sought to assert the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and estoppel by judgment. However, neither the judgment nor the record in the Markey action were introduced into the record before the instant trial court. Atlas Land Corporation v. Norman, 116 Fla. 800, 156 So. 885 (1934) (en banc).

We have considered the arguments presented by the appellant concerning the application of the doctrine of estop-pel by judgment, and particularly his arguments urging adoption of the current minority position represented by Desmond *467v. Kramer, 96 N.J.Super. 96, 232 A.2d 470 (1967). We express the view that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error as to the point concerning estoppel by judgment. Atlas Land Corporation, supra; Culloden v. Music, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 240, 244. We have also considered appellant’s points concerning the alleged error in permitting testimony of an expert witness for lack of a proper predicate and permitting certain Dade County traffic ordinances to be read to the jury. Appellant has also failed to demonstrate reversible error as to these points.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw