useoftraffiCiNfraCtioNsaNdaCCideNtreportsiNCivillawsuits
Trial & litigation Section Chair : ErinJackson , JohnsonJacksonLLC
thephrase “ accident reportprivilege ” was correctwhenprior versionsofthestatute conferredaprivilege .
Are traffic infractions admissible in civil lawsuits ? While Florida Statutes § 318.14 ( 4 )( b ) excludes admissions of traffic infractions in subsequent proceedings , the clear and unambiguous language of the statute states that the exclusion only applies when the violator avails himself / herself of the “ mail-in ” procedure set forth in the previous subsection . 1
A person pleading guilty in open court at a hearing on a citation issued for violation of a traffic statute “ would more fully comprehend the significance of an incriminating admission than if that person had utilized the innocuous mail-order adjustment procedure permitted by Section 318.14 ( 4 ).” 2 Especially since “[ a ] guilty plea is a kind of ‘ admission against interest .’ Absent an express exclusionary rule such as is contained in section 318.14 ( 4 )( b ), it may be introduced in a civil action against a party , if relevant and material to the issues .” 3 Further , “[ p ] roof of violation of a traffic ordinance is prima facie evidence of negligence .” 4
A guilty plea in open court or resulting adjudication may be judicially noticed in the civil case . 5 Additionally , a plea or finding of guilt is admissible for impeachment in a subsequent civil action as an admission against interest by a party opponent . 6 In that instance the Court should instruct the jury as to the guilty plea , as a court record . 7
Turning to the report itself , the “ accident report privilege ” is a misnomer . While Florida Statute § 316.066 ( 4 ), precludes the admissibility of statements made by individuals involved in the accident for the purpose of completing a crash report ; it does not preclude discovery pertaining to these statements . 8
The phrase “ accident report privilege ” was correct when prior versions of the statute conferred a privilege . Confusion has persisted because courts have continued to refer to the statute as creating an “ accident report privilege ” despite the 1989 amendment to the statute . While some other courts have also found the current version makes the statements both inadmissible and privileged , they have done so only in dicta . 9 n
1
Fla . Stat . § 318.14 ( 4 )( a ).
2
Carter v . Rukab , 437 So . 2d 761 , 763 ( Fla . 1st DCA 1983 ).
3
MacNeil v . Singer , 389 So . 2d 232 , 234 ( Fla . 5th DCA 1980 ).
4 deJesus v . Seaboard Coast Line R . Co ., 281 So . 2d 198 , 201 ( Fla . 1973 ).
5
See Fla . Stat . §§ 90.202 , 90.203 .
6
See id . at § 90.803 ( 18 ); Chimerakis v . Evans , 221 So . 2d 735 , 736 ( Fla . 1969 ); Boshnack v . World Wide Rent-A- Car , Inc ., 195 So . 2d 216 , 219 ( Fla . 1967 ). 7
Fla . Stat . § 90.206 .
8
Anderson v . Mitchell , 300 So . 3d 693 , 695 ( Fla . 2d DCA 2019 ) (“ Under the plain language of the statute , the only limitation on the information is that it may not be used as evidence at trial . There is no indication that the information is otherwise protected from disclosure . Thus , the statute makes the protected information inadmissible , not privileged .”)
9
Id . at 697 .
Author : Anthony “ Nino ” Martino - Clark ♦ Martino , P . A .
plan to attend the trial & Litigation Section Awards Ceremony on February 2nd . Register at hillsbar . com . j a n - f e b 2 0 2 2 | H C b a L a W Y e R
5 9