Personal Injury Attorney Case Law Update - Recent Car Accident Opinions from the South Florida District Court

Recently, in Broward County, Florida, the 4^th District Court of Appeal (DCA) ruled on a case where there was an automobile accident on the Sawgrass Expressway.  Ms. Hulick struck the rear of Mrs. Beers’ vehicle causing Mrs. Beers’ vehicle to cross the median into oncoming traffic and to be hit head-on by a second and then third vehicle.  Mrs. Beers died at the scene.  Ms. Hulick and Reynolds and Reynolds Co., the owner of the vehicle were sued.  Hulick v. Beers, 7 So.3d 1153 (4^th DCA 2009).  The jury in this case awarded a jury verdict of over $21 million.  Defendants admitted to negligently rear-ending Mrs. Beers’ vehicle, but denied being totally at fault.  The defense did try to show that Mrs. Beers, by stepping on the accelerator instead of the brakes was partly to blame for her own death.  

Then, during the trial, Mrs. Beers’ brother-in-law Mr. Moll, testified about what he had been told by a witness at the scene of the accident.  He was supposed to just tell the jury that Mrs. Beers kept saying “help, help” and that her last words were “please, call my husband.”  But, Mr. Moll when asked on direct examination, added that “we were at the criminal traffic trial, I believe”, when defense counsel objected and asked for a mistrial.  The Judge denied it and asked defense counsel if he wanted a curative instruction or individually voir dire the jury.  Defense counsel denied both requests. 

The appellate court stated “where fault is an issue, evidence of the presence or absence of a traffic citation will almost always constitute prejudicial error and warrant a mistrial.  The rational for such a rule is as follows:  common sense (and experience as well) tells us that to the average juror the decision of their investigating police officer, i.e., whether to charge one driver or the other with a traffic violation based upon the result of his investigation, is very material to, if not wholly dispositive of, that juror’s determination of fault on the part of the respective drivers.” Id.

The appellate court then went on to site other cases and discussed how the particular circumstance of each case must be examined in ruling on a motion for new trial.  In one case, the defense counsel elicited the absence of a ticket for the apparent purpose of suggesting that the accident was too minor to have warranted a ticket and thus a new trial was warranted.  In another case a police officer who was called to the scene of an accident and where there was an inference of the defendant getting a ticket, that too was too prejudicial.

But, the appellate court in the case at hand, reviewed the evidence and decided that in this case, the defendant admitted to careless driving and overwhelming evidence was presented that this careless driving caused a significant impact with the rear of the decadent’s car.  The appellate court could not see how the fact that the jury may have known that a traffic citation was issued for the admitted careless driving could have had any prejudicial impact on the jury’s resolution of these issues.  Further, the appellate court determined that the reference to a “criminal” traffic trial could have been cured with a curative instruction that neither the Plaintiff nor Defendant or anyone else were criminally prosecuted in connection with the car accident.  Id.  And thus, the trial court’s rulings and the jury verdict were all sustained.