Case Name: John S. SKOG, Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida; and Robert George Moore, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1961-11-30
Citations: 135 So. 2d 25
Docket Number: No. 61-183
Parties: John S. SKOG, Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida; and Robert George Moore, Appellees.
Judges: Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and HORTON and CARROLL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 135
Pages: 25–26

Head Matter:
John S. SKOG, Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida; and Robert George Moore, Appellees.
No. 61-183.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Nov. 30, 1961.
Sherouse & Corlett; Kenneth L. Ryskamp, Miami, for appellant.
Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahl, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and HORTON and CARROLL, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial in a personal injury action. The complaint alleged injuries arising out of an automobile collision at a street intersection in the City of Miami. The jury found for the plaintiff and the trial judge granted the new trial upon four separate grounds as follows:
1. The trial judge's failure to sustain objection to opinion testimony of a police officer as to which vehicle first entered the intersection.
2. The court's failure to instruct upon an ordinance which is found to be applicable.
3. The court's failure to grant a mistrial for certain happenings in the course of the trial which the trial judge concluded may have improperly influenced the jury.
4. The trial judge's conclusion that the defendant did not receive a fair trial because he was misled upon discovery procedures.
In reviewing the grounds designated by the trial judge in his order granting the motion for new trial, we find that those grounds relating to errors in procedure, which deprived one of the parties of a fair trial, are sufficient to support the order appealed.
Affirmed.
HORTON, J., dissents.