DONALD R. DICKERSON AND MARILOU DICKERSON, HUSBAND AND WIFE, WILLIAM F. HOTCHKIN AND ELLEN C. HOTCHKIN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, G. THEODORE MASCOTT AND BETSEY H. MASCOTT, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AND CHEMURGY, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, GULF CONTRACTING, INC., MARSHALL L. NOVAK, MARSHALL L. NOVAK, P.A., COLONY BEACH, INC., COLONY BEACH ASSOCIATES, LTD., MURRAY J. KLAUBER AND JOSEPH PENNER, AS GENERAL PARTNERS OF AND D/B/A COLONY BEACH ASSOCIATES, LTD., AND COLONY BEACH AND TENNIS CLUB ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of argument of counsel, the briefs and record submitted, we believe that the trial judge was technically correct in his ruling herein based upon Avila South Condominium Association, Inc. v. Kappa Corporation, 347 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1977), and consequently, we affirm his order. However, we believe justice in this matter would best be served by directing the trial court to permit those parties dropped as a result of his order to be reinstated as parties and permit appellants to amend their complaint in order to assert with more specificity their individual claims, if possible, see Breslerman v. Dorten, Inc., 362 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
AFFIRMED with directions.
GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Trs. OF Cent. States Se. & Sw. Areas v. Indico Corp., 401 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…cial property, that is, the amount it would go for on a loan. Although he was perhaps an expert in valuation of property for one purpose, he was not shown to be an expert for the purpose for which he was offered. In Prohaska v. The Bison Co., Inc., 365 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the evidence established that the proffered witness was qualified to testify concerning methods and procedures of injection molding plastic components, but the subject he was called upon to testify to was the structural sufficie…
-
United Techs. Commc'ns Co. v. Indus. Risk Insurers & Mercy Hosp., Inc., 501 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…been “brought up and raised around” his father’s tool and die shop, the trial court was held to have properly excluded the witness as an expert because he had no special knowledge regarding wood. A like result obtained in Prohaska v. The Bison Co., 365 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). There, judgment was entered for the plaintiff in a breach of contract action where the asserted defense was that certain lock sets were defective in materials rather than design. The defendant’s contention on appeal was that the…
-
Harrison v. Savers Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ded purpose. In Wright v. State, 348 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1977), this court held that fundamental error was committed when an expert testified beyond his qualifications. Furthermore, in Prohaska v. Bison Co., 365 So. 2d 794, 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (holding that it was error to permit an expert to testify beyond his area of expertise), this court observed that error cannot be considered harmless when the testimony of the expert relied upon is the only testimony in the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Avila S. Condo. Ass'n v. Kappa Corp., 347 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1976)
- Breslerman v. Dorten, Inc., 362 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)