Fielding v. Publix Cars, Inc.

I respectfully dissent from the judgment of reversal in this case. The sole reason for this court’s action is fairly disclosed by the following extract from the majority opin*586ion: “We agree with plaintiff’s counsel that evidence that defendant carried liability insurance is admissible to prove the relation of master and servant, or any other relation upon which liability can be predicated, where, as in the case at bar, it is an issue under the pleadings. * * * But, in the case at bar, the form in which the question was asked precludes this argument because it shows on its face that it did not…