Case Name: Robert Starr McLIN, William Starr McLin, Mary R. McLin and Government Employees Insurance Company, Appellants, v. E. H. GRADY and Mary A. Grady, the natural parents of Tony Lamata Grady, a minor, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1978-10-09
Citations: 363 So. 2d 395
Docket Number: No. JJ-305
Parties: Robert Starr McLIN, William Starr McLin, Mary R. McLin and Government Employees Insurance Company, Appellants, v. E. H. GRADY and Mary A. Grady, the natural parents of Tony Lamata Grady, a minor, Appellees.
Judges: McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 363
Pages: 395–396

Head Matter:
Robert Starr McLIN, William Starr McLin, Mary R. McLin and Government Employees Insurance Company, Appellants, v. E. H. GRADY and Mary A. Grady, the natural parents of Tony Lamata Grady, a minor, Appellees.
No. JJ-305.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct. 9, 1978.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1978.
Robert P. Gaines of Beggs & Lane, Pensacola, for appellants.
Robert G. Kerrigan of Kerrigan, Estess & Rankin, Pensacola, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The trial court granted a new trial on the ground that it had made an error in excluding certain evidence. We reverse.
The ruling of the trial court that certified copies of traffic convictions were not admissible because negligent entrustment was not an issue was correct. Cloo-ney v. Geeting, 352 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The trial court's ruling that the citations were not admissible for impeachment purposes was also correct. Appellant Robert Starr McLin, testifying on appellees' proffer, initially denied that he had been convicted of a crime. It developed immediately thereafter, however, that such denial was the result of a misunderstanding. — he thought that the traffic offenses were not crimes. When he was informed they were crimes, he freely admitted the offenses. Thus, there was no basis for admitting certified copies of convictions.
We reverse the order granting a new trial with directions to reinstate the jury verdict.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.