## Facts

- Hubert Farley, while operating a motorcycle, collided with an automobile driven by Elonzo P. Dann, Jr.
- Dann died before trial, and Farley sued Everett A. Collins, as administrator ad litem of Dann’s estate, for damages from the collision.
- At trial, Farley testified about the movements of his motorcycle immediately before the collision and about the movements of both vehicles during the collision.
- The estate objected under Florida’s Dead Man’s Statute, § 90.05, arguing the collision was a “transaction” with the decedent and Farley was incompetent to testify about it.
- The trial court overruled the objection and entered judgment for Farley.
- The District Court of Appeal reversed, ruling the collision was a “transaction” within § 90.05 and certifying the question as one of great public interest.

## Issues

1. Whether an automobile collision constitutes a “transaction” within § 90.05, Florida Statutes, barring a surviving, interested party from testifying about the collision against a decedent’s estate.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Florida quashed the District Court of Appeal’s decision.
- The court held that an automobile collision is not a “transaction” within the meaning of § 90.05.
- Farley’s testimony describing the vehicles’ movements immediately before and during the collision was admissible.
- The trial court’s judgment for Farley was effectively reinstated.

## Legal Principles

- Witness-disqualification provisions that restrict testimony by interested parties against a decedent’s estate should not be expanded by construction beyond their intended scope.
- For purposes of § 90.05, a “transaction” connotes reciprocal dealings or interactions of a communicative or consensual character, not a purely accidental event.
- A fortuitous tort occurrence, such as a traffic collision, does not constitute a “transaction” with the deceased that triggers the statutory bar.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court concluded that a traffic collision is not a “transaction” under § 90.05 and therefore does not render the surviving party incompetent to testify about the circumstances of the accident in litigation against the decedent’s estate.


Farley v. Collins, 146 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1962)