Opinion
No. 37757.
April 16, 1969.
Kelner Lewis, Miami, for petitioners.
Edward J. Atkins, of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson Wahl, Miami, for respondent.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District.
219 So.2d 446 (Opinion filed August 13, 1968).
Plaintiffs, petitioners herein, sued defendant, respondent herein, to recover for injuries resulting from an intersectional automobile collision. The trial court (1) excluded from evidence the pertinent provision of the Metropolitan Dade County Traffic Code (the accident occurred at the intersection of Miracle Mile and Galiano in Coral Gables); (2) excluded evidence of defendant's plea of guilty to the violation in the Metropolitan Court of Dade County; and (3) denied plaintiffs the right to cross-examine the defendant concerning her plea of guilty.
The jury returned a verdict for defendant and plaintiffs appealed. The district court affirmed, holding the errors of the trial court in refusing to allow in evidence the Traffic Code and defendant's plea of guilty to violation thereof were not prejudicial. This decision conflicts with cases holding such evidence admissible and highly pertinent. In Boshnack v. World Wide Rent-A-Car, Inc., 195 So.2d 216 (Fla. 1967), this Court held that a plea of guilty in a criminal proceeding is admissible in a civil action as an admission against interest.
Boshnack v. World Wide Rent-A-Car, Inc., 195 So.2d 216 (Fla. 1967) (plea of guilty); Pillet v. Ershick, 99 Fla. 483, 126 So. 784 (1930) (ordinance).
Blue Gray Cab Co. v. Lowe, 143 Fla. 129, 196 So. 425 (1940); Douglass v. Sapotnick, 126 Fla. 753, 171 So. 765 (1937).
Where, as here, error is clearly made to appear, injury is presumed to follow. The violation of a traffic ordinance in the instant case was prima facie evidence of negligence which should have been submitted to the jury along with other evidence in the case, including defendant's admission of guilt.
Griffith v. Shamrock Village, Inc., 94 So.2d 854 (Fla. 1957); Stafford v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co., 179 So.2d 232 (Fla.App.2d 1965).
Harvey v. Florida Power Light Co., 136 So.2d 9 (Fla.App.3rd 1962); Bryant v. City of Tampa, 100 So.2d 665 (Fla. App.2d 1958).
Accordingly, the decision of the District Court is quashed and the cause remanded for a new trial consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, ADKINS and CALDWELL (Retired), JJ., concur.
THORNAL, Acting C.J., dissents with Opinion.
The entire opinion of the District Court of Appeal, which the majority has quashed, reads as follows:
"This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a final judgment entered for defendant pursuant to a jury verdict of not guilty in a suit charging defendant with negligence in the operation of her automobile causing injuries to the plaintiffs.
"Plaintiffs seek reversal on the ground that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the Metropolitan Dade County Traffic Code, in excluding evidence of defendant's plea of guilty to the violation, and in denying plaintiffs the right to cross examine the defendant concerning her plea of guilty.
"We have carefully considered appellants' contentions in the light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel and have concluded that the errors complained of were not so prejudicial as to result in a miscarriage of justice. Powell v. Wilson Lumber Co. of Florida, 115 Fla. 13, 155 So. 116; Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling, Fla.App. 1958, 104 So.2d 120 (Emphasis added).
"Accordingly the judgment appealed is affirmed.
"Affirmed."
As I read this opinion it simply means that the District Court examined the entire record, including the transcript of testimony, and concluded that the alleged errors were not sufficiently prejudicial as to produce a miscarriage of justice.
As I read the majority opinion my colleagues simply disagree with this finding by the District Judges and quash their judgment. This is simply another case where this Court has seen fit to allow a second appeal. I think the Constitution of Florida does not authorize it.
I, therefore, respectfully dissent because of lack of jurisdiction in this Court.