Case Name: Ruby P. WARD, Appellant, v. Frank H. HOPKINS, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1955-06-17
Citations: 81 So. 2d 493
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ruby P. WARD, Appellant, v. Frank H. HOPKINS, Appellee.
Judges: ' TERRELL and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 81
Pages: 493–496

Head Matter:
Ruby P. WARD, Appellant, v. Frank H. HOPKINS, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.
June 17, 1955.
Rehearing Denied July 21, 1955.
Fowler, White, Gillen, Yancey & Hum-key, Tampa, for appellant.
Branch & Goff and McEwen & Cason, Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
DREW, Chief Justice, and THORNAL, Justice..
In a negligence case arising out of the collision of two automobiles, one driven by the appellant, defendant below, and the other driven by the appellee, plaintiff below, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant.
Upon motion of the- plaintiff the trial Judge granted a new trial for the reason as stated in his order that " the testimony in said cause is conflicting and the Court being fearful that the admonishment of Plaintiff's counsel by the Court • in the presence of the Jury could have affected the verdict of the Jury in the above cause On an appeal by the defendant from this order the sole question is whether the trial Judge committed error in granting a new trial for the reason stated.
The basis for the granting of the motion for a new trial was an exchange between the Court and counsel for the plaintiff which occurred in the cross examination of a physician who was testifying to the extent of plaintiff's disability. Mr. Goff was attorney for the plaintiff and Mr. Tanney was attorney for the defendant. The exchange between Court and counsel to which the trial Judge made reference in his order, beginning with the-question by plaintiff's.counsel, was as follows:
"Q. Would you like to look at his hand now, and determine whether he can straighten his fingers out?
"The Court: Well, that's not a proper question .to ask him if he would like to look at it.
"Mr. Tanney: If Mr. Goff had wanted an-examination before the trial, Dr. Ruskin would have been glad to see him. • ' '
"The Court: Yes, I think that's not a proper .question. You can make him your witness and let him examine him, if you want to .
"Mr. Goff: He has testified about the condition .
."The Court:- *" if you-pay him for the examination. I guess he'd -make one, I don't know, but 1 think that's a highly improper question.to ask a professional, witness, because he doesn't usually, work, for nothing.
"Mr. Goff: There's no argument about money; I've paid him for everything that he's done for me.
"The Court: .I'.ve. never found lawyers or doctors either one working for nothing.
"Mr. Goff: Well, it istf't a-question of fee. I'm asking" him -if he Wants to examine this"man. '
"The Court: You want you're asking the witness to examine the man now, and .
"Mr. Goff: Yes sir; I'll pay for it.
"The Court: give an opinion ? Of course, that's what you meant.
"Mr. Goff: Yes sir.
"The Court: Well, he doesn't examine people unless he gets. paid for it, ordinarily.
"Mr. "Goff: Well, I'll reframe my question, and ask him if he would like to make an examination, now at my expense, of Mr. Hopkins.
"The Court: Well, it's too late for that now, Mr. Goff. Don't try to make that kind of a grandstand here before the jury .
"Mr. Goff: All right, sir.
"The Court: because I don't like that kind of stuff.
"Mr. Goff: All right.
"The Court: You know that isn't proper, too; you've been in the game long enough to know better."
It is well settled that the granting or denying of a motion for a new trial rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial Judge and that his order is entitled to a presumption of correctness. Bailey v. Lloyd, Fla., 1953, 62 So.2d 56.
An examination of the record convinces us that if the scene in the trial Court at the time of the exchange between the Judge -and counsel could be re-enacted with all the overtones — the inflection of the voices — the expression on the face of the Judge and the faces of the Jury — and the general atmosphere of the court room, there could be found ample justification for the fears of the trial Judge that the admonishment of plaintiff's counsel in the-fashion above quoted might well have affected the verdict of the jury.
The obvious desire of the trial Judge to-see complete and unfettered justice done. doubtless influenced-by the elements above suggested, undoubtedly impelled him to the conclusion thát a new trial should be granted. His judgment under the. circumstance's is more likely to be right than the judgment of this Court based entirely on an examination of the record without the benefit of direct contact with the occurrences which transpired in the trial Court.'
The Circuit Judge exercised a judicial discretion thoroughly justified by the record and supported by a laudable objective. The order granting the motion for new trial is sustained. See Brinson v. Howard, Fla., 71 So.2d 172; Florida Coastal Theatres, Inc., v. Belflower, 159 Fla. 741, 32 So.2d 738; 30 F.S.A. Common Law Rule 41(f), as amended March 18, 1952.
Affirmed.
' TERRELL and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, SEBRIÍS1G and ROBERTS, JJ., dissent.