JAMES E. DODSON AND LORRAINE L. DODSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES L. PERSELL AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to require the production of surveillance films, as they may constitute protected work product.
[1] Surveillance films in a personal injury action may constitute work product and be excluded from discovery on that basis.
[2] A trial court's refusal to order the production of surveillance films in a personal injury action does not constitute error.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs in a personal injury action sought discovery of surveillance films. The trial court refused to order their production, and also issued a pr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.280 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The controlling question on this appeal is whether the plaintiffs in a personal injury action were entitled to the discovery of surveillance films under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. The plaintiffs rely for reversal upon Corack v. Travelers Insurance Company, 347 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); and Spencer v. Beverly, 307 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
This court has held that surveillance films may constitute work product and may be excluded from discovery on that basis. See Collier v. McKesson, 121 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). We hold that the refusal of the trial court to require the production of the films does not present error. See Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1952); and Nationwide Insurance Company, Pinellas County v. Monroe, 276 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).
Appellants’ point claiming error upon the ground that a protective order, which prevented the taking of the deposition of an investigator who took the films, was too broad does not show error on this record. It is clear that the appellants’ sole purpose was to get the films to prevent surprise at the trial. The need for collateral information from the investigator was not presented to the trial judge and has not been adequately presented here. Cf. Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970).
A third point based on the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial due to a comment of the appellees’ attorney does not show reversible error. See the rule stated in Marshall v. State, 54 Fla. 66, 44 So. 742.1 Cf. McKinney Supply Company v. Orovitz, 96 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1957).
The fourth point, directed to the failure of the court to give an instruction, does not show error. See Adelhelm v. Dougherty, 129 Fla. 680, 176 So. 775, 777 (1937); and Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b).
Affirmed.
. “Even if this testimony is not of matters forming a part of the res gestae, and therefore admissible, it had already been brought out by the defendants, and they cannot object to its repetition when no harm is shown from the repetition.” 44 So. at 743.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dodson v. Persell, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1980)…OVERTON, Justice. This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision reported at 365 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and concerns the entitlement of a party to discover the existence and contents of surveillance films or photographs pursuant to the provisions of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. There is clear conflict. The Third District…
-
Target Corp. v. Tracee D. Vogel, 41 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…d videos prior to her deposition. We distinguish Dodson v. Persell, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla.1980), upon which Target relies. That case involved surveillance films of a purportedly injured plaintiff, made after the accident at issue. Dodson v. Persell, 365 So. 2d 413, 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), rev’d, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla.1980). Such films, usually taken by defense private investigators, were characterized by the supreme court as falling under the work product privilege, unless intended for use at trial. Id. at 707.…
-
Dodson v. Persell, 392 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on December 5,1978, 365 So. 2d 413, affirming the order of the Circuit Court of Dade County, in the above styled cause; and WHEREAS, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed November 20, 1980, 390 So. 2d 704,…
Authorities Cited
- Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)
- Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1952)
- Mrs. August F. Adelhelm v. Jeanie W. Dougherty, 129 Fla. 680 (Fla. 1937)
- McKINNEY Supply Co. v. Orovitz, 96 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1957)
- Collier v. McKESSON, 121 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Spencer v. Beverly, 307 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Marshall v. State, 54 Fla. 66 (Fla. 1907)
- Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Monroe, 276 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Corack v. Travelers Ins. Co., 347 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)