Case ID: so2d_596/html/1139-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. POLEN, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Walter O. BRADFORD, Jr., and Janice K. Bradford, his wife, Richard Allen Cabral and Donna S. Cabral, his wife, Appellants, v. William Clyde LEWIS, White Star Carriers, Inc., and Florida Trailer Sales, Inc., Appellees.
    No. 91-1837.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    March 18, 1992.
    Rehearing, Rehearing En Banc and Certification Denied May 11, 1992.
    Robert C. Maland, Robert C. Maland, P.A., Miami, for appellants.
    Eric A. Peterson, Peterson and Bernard, and Larry Klein, Klein and Walsh, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. The appellants claim reversible error in the trial court’s failure to give an instruction on the careless driving statute. We believe the matters set out in that statute were sufficiently covered in the court’s instructions on negligence and causation so as to preclude a finding of any substantial harm. We find no error in the other issues raised on appeal.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.

POLEN, J., dissents with opinion.

POLEN, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. I would reverse based on the trial court’s failure to give appellants’ requested jury instructions on violation of a traffic regulation [Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Civil) 4.11, modified], together with a careless driving instruction per section 316.1925, Florida Statutes (1989). Further, although the issue raised by appellants’ fourth point on appeal, standing alone, would not warrant a reversal, were the majority inclined to reverse on the jury instruction, I would advocate that error was committed as to the fourth point as well. That point argues the trial court impermissibly precluded appellants’ expert, Mr. Bynum, from answering a question regarding appellees’ duty vis-a-vis traffic regulations. I would hold the trial court erred in disallowing the answer, albeit we have no proffer, which renders problematic whether the ruling prejudiced appellant. See Irwin v. Blake, 589 So.2d 973, 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (Polen, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).