RHEA SCHWARTZ AND HERMAN SCHWARTZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
M. J. M. CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A WALDORF TOWERS HOTEL, APPELLEE
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 trial court committed reversible error by excluding the testimony of the appellants' expert witness regarding the condition of the stairway.
Appellants brought a personal injury action after a fall. The trial court excluded the testimony of their safety engineer expert witness.…
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 Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
[*92] KEHOE, Judge.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, bring this appeal from a final judgment entered after a jury trial by the trial court in a personal injury action. We reverse.
Among the points raised by appellants on appeal is one which, in our opinion, requires reversal of the final judgment appealed. In this point, appellants contend that the trial court erred by granting appellee’s motion to exclude the testimony of their expert witness, a safety engineer, and by refusing to allow the expert to testify.
Our review of the record in this case leads us to the conclusion that it constituted reversible error for the trial court to exclude the testimony of appellants’ expert witness. The apparent basis of the trial court’s exclusion of the expert’s testimony was based upon the premise that because appellant could not testify as to which step on a stairway caused her to fall the expert could not testify as to the condition of the stairway. In our opinion the condition, etc., of the stairway was a proper subject upon which the expert could testify in this case, and that it was error for the trial court to exclude his testimony. See, e. g., Cromarty v. Ford Motor Company, 341 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1976); Goldring v. Escapa, 338 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Fletcher v. Petman Enterprises, Inc., 324 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Majeske v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, 117 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959), and Millar v. Tropical Gables Corp., 99 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). Accordingly, the final judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 695 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 688 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Metropolitan Dade County v. St. Claire, 445 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Sheckler v. City of Mt. Dora, 395 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Schwartz v. M.J.M. Corp., 368 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Gifford v. Galaxie Homes of Tampa, Inc., 223 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), cert. denied, 229 So. 2d 869 (Fla.1969); Millar v. Tropical Gables Corp., 99 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). We are not uninfluenced by the fact that the…
-
Vega v. City OF Pompano Beach, 551 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…ed a safe dumpster and warnings should have been given); Metropolitan Dade Co. v. St. Claire, 445 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (expert’s testimony on special responsibility of dog handler of attack trained dog admissible); Schwartz v. M.J.M. Corp., 368 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (reversible error in excluding expert testimony concerning dangerous condition of stairway); School Board of Broward Co. v. Surette, 394 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA), pet. for review denied, 399 So. 2d 1146 (Fla.1981) (trial court pr…
-
Leonard Bros. Indus. Contractors & Riggers Co., Inc. v. The Burke Co., 529 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…edly broke and arguably caused this accident. We have not overlooked the fact that contrary inferences could also be drawn based on the evidence adduced below, but conclude that a jury issue was presented on this issue. See Schwartz v. M.J.M. Corp., 368 So. 2d 91, 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); § 90.105(2) law revision council note, Fla.Stat.Ann. (1979); see also Fay v. Mincey, 454 So. 2d 587, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Vitt v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 340 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); cf. Musleh v. Division of Admi…
Authorities Cited
- Majeske v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, 117 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Millar v. Tropical Gables Corp., 99 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Fletcher v. Petman Enters., Inc., 324 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Elzada W. Cromarty v. Ford Motor Co., 341 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1976)
- Gale J. Stern v. Indus. Relations Comm'n, 338 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Barney Goldring v. Escapa, 338 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)