Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Stossel, (1937)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 18
Judges: TERRELL, J.
Attorneys: Loftin, Stokes Calkins, Robert H. Anderson and Harold B. Wahl, for Appellant;
W.H. Mizell, for Appellee.
Filed: Jun. 30, 1937
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This is our third consideration of this case. See Stossel v. Gulf Life Insurance Company, 119 Fla. 715 , 161 So. 835 ; Stossel v. Gulf Life Insurance Company, 123 Fla. 227 , 166 So. 821 . A fuller statement of the salient facts will be found in these cases. We are confronted in this consideration with the question of whether or not the evidence shows that Stossel was physically or mentally incapacitated to such an extent that he is now and will be wholly and presumably permanently *Page 269 unab
Summary: This is our third consideration of this case. See Stossel v. Gulf Life Insurance Company, 119 Fla. 715 , 161 So. 835 ; Stossel v. Gulf Life Insurance Company, 123 Fla. 227 , 166 So. 821 . A fuller statement of the salient facts will be found in these cases. We are confronted in this consideration with the question of whether or not the evidence shows that Stossel was physically or mentally incapacitated to such an extent that he is now and will be wholly and presumably permanently *Page 269 unabl..
More
I concur, except as to part of what is said about the admissibility of moving picture films. There might be cases where such pictures, taken before the controversy gets into court, would be valuable evidence. Of course the circumstances under which they were taken could be shown, to rebut if possible the probative force of the pictures. After suit is brought, I concur in the suggestion that, to be admissible, such pictures should be taken by or under the supervision of a court commissioner. While, fairly taken, such pictures might be useful in exposing fraudulent claims, when such are attempted, they can be taken in such a way as to mislead and give a false impression. I do not mean to intimate that any such deliberate effort to mislead was present in this case, but any general
rule that is adopted should take this possibility into consideration and erect reasonable safeguards against it.
Source: CourtListener
