Case Name: SCHIELD BANTUM COMPANY, Inc., an Iowa corporation, Appellant, v. James M. GREIF, Appellee; ALBERT RICKEL, INC., a Florida corporation, and Gevan Nixon, Jr., Appellants, v. James M. GREIF, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1964-02-25
Citations: 161 So. 2d 266
Docket Number: Nos. 62-752, 63-49
Parties: SCHIELD BANTUM COMPANY, Inc., an Iowa corporation, Appellant, v. James M. GREIF, Appellee. ALBERT RICKEL, INC., a Florida corporation, and Gevan Nixon, Jr., Appellants, v. James M. GREIF, Appellee.
Judges: Before CARROLL, TILLMAN PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 161
Pages: 266–268

Head Matter:
SCHIELD BANTUM COMPANY, Inc., an Iowa corporation, Appellant, v. James M. GREIF, Appellee. ALBERT RICKEL, INC., a Florida corporation, and Gevan Nixon, Jr., Appellants, v. James M. GREIF, Appellee.
Nos. 62-752, 63-49.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Feb. 25, 1964.
Rehcarings Denied March 17, 1964.
Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahl, Miami, for appellant Schield Bantum Co., Inc.
Papy & Carruthers, Miami, for appellant Albert Rickel, Inc.
Nichols, Gaither, Beckham, Colson & Spence and Alan R. Schwartz, Miami, for appellee.
Before CARROLL, TILLMAN PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
These consolidated appeals are by defendants from a judgment based on a verdict won by the plaintiff-appellee in a motor vehicle accident case. Plaintiff was injured when his vehicle, stopped by a traffic signal, was struck from the rear by another motor vehicle, a mobile crane. The latter vehicle had suffered a brake failure caused by damage to a brake line which ran along the top of an axle instead of on the side. The action was against the manufacturer, the owner and the driver. The jury verdict was for the plaintiff and against all the defendants. After hearing argument and considering the briefs and record we find no reversible error as to liability but we reverse the judgment and remand for new trial on damages. Prejudicial error was committed at the trial when defendants were not allowed to show in evidence that for an injury received some years earlier the plaintiff had been assigned a 25% permanent partial disability in a workmen's compensation case in Kentucky, and that some months prior to trial the plaintiff had written to the Kentucky Workmen's Compensation Board requesting to have his case reopened. See Central Mutual Insurance Company v. Newman, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 41; Corbett v. Berg, Fla.App.1963, 152 So.2d 196. The plaintiff had testified that for the past two years his condition of health was perfect. At the trial the evidence as to the extent of his injuries was not without conflict. Doctors who testified were not in agreement on disability percentages. The prior injury was brought out, and aggravation thereof was an element for consideration. The damages awarded were considerable. As appellants contend, there is no way of knowing whether the amount of the verdict would have been different if the jury had been shown this relevant evidence offered for the purpose of impeachment and to show that plaintiff's condition prior to the accident may not have been as he testified. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for a new trial on damages only.