I. B. L. CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
I.B.L. Corporation appealed a jury verdict in a negligence action arising from a fire that destroyed its building, which was allegedly caused by defendant Florida Power & Light Company's transformers. The appellate court affirmed the judgment for the defendant, rejecting the appellant's challenges to the trial judge's evidentiary rulings.
The court held that the trial judge properly excluded the prior occurrence evidence because appellant failed to establish sufficient similarity of conditions, causes, and circumstances between the two incidents. The court also found no error in admitting the fire scene photographs and noted that appellant failed to preserve this issue through timely objection.
[1] Evidence of a prior occurrence is inadmissible in a negligence action unless the proponent demonstrates sufficient similarity of conditions, causes, and circumstances bet…
[2] A trial court may exclude evidence of prior similar incidents if their admission would likely introduce collateral issues and mislead the jury from the matter directly in…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“appellant failed to show sufficient similarity of the conditions, causes and circumstances surrounding both incidents so as to regard the disputed evidence as relevant and material”
Establishes the legal standard for admitting prior occurrence evidence in negligence cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA fire totally destroyed the building housing I.B.L. Corporation's operations. The fire allegedly involved F.P. & L. transformers located on a utility…
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 Collateral Matters cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant I.B.L. Corporation brings this appeal from final judgment entered in accordance with a jury verdict in its negligence action arising from a fire which totally destroyed the building housing its operations, which verdict and judgment found for appellee Florida Power & Light Company, defendant below. Appellant first contends that it was error for the trial judge to exclude evidence of a prior occurrence which involved the F.P. & L. transformers located on the utility pole adjacent to appellant’s business premises.
Having made a careful review of the briefs, the record, and in particular the trial transcript in this cause, we conclude that the trial judge’s ruling on this matter was eminently correct, since appellant failed to show sufficient similarity of the conditions, causes and circumstances surrounding both incidents so as to regard the disputed evidence as relevant and material. Perret v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 299 So. 2d 590 (Fla.1974); Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Fulmer, 227 So. 2d 870 (Fla.1969); Chambers v. Loftin, 67 So. 2d 220 (Fla.1953); Warn Industries v. Geist, 343 So. 2d 44 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 680 (Fla.1977); Auto Specialties Manufacturing Co. v. Boutwell, 335 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1st DCA), cert. dismissed, 341 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1976). In this connection, it was noted by the trial judge that a paramount consideration was that the transformer which was involved in the earlier incident had been replaced prior to the occurrence here in question. The trial judge further stated as grounds for his exclusion ruling the likelihood that this evidence would introduce collateral issues and mislead the jury from the matter directly in controversy, a factor which weighs heavily against the admission of the evidence in question. See Perret v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., supra; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Campbell, 104 Fla. 274, 139 So. 886 (1932); Short v. Allen, 254 So. 2d 34 (Fla.3d DCA 1971).
As to appellant’s second point on appeal, that it was error to admit in evidence certain photographs taken of the fire scene, we find both that no error is shown on the record and furthermore, that appellant has failed to preserve this point on appeal by timely objection.
The judgment appealed is hereby
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lasar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Bachanov, 436 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…. v. Maloy, 419 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Department of Transportation v. Webb, 409 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied sub nom Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Webb, 419 So. 2d 1200 (Fla.1982); I.B.L. Corp. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 400 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 466 (Fla.1982); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Friddle, 290 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev’d, 306 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1974) (adopting dissenting opinion). As a general rule, evidence of the occurrence or no…
-
Ashby Div. OF Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Dobkin, 458 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…in favor of Consolidated, and in the other case, the jury found the plaintiff 80% negligent and Consolidated only 20% negligent. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Campbell, 104 Fla. 274, 139 So. 886 (1932); I.B.L. Corp. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 400 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 466 (Fla.1982). Defendants also raise as error the trial court's refusal to permit Silverman to testify about the accident-free history of the product. For the same reason that we find error in the introd…
-
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 505 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…hip. Evidence of other incidents or accidents, even when admitted for impeachment purposes, tends to inject collateral issues and to divert the jury’s attention from the matter directly in controversy. See I.B.L. Corp. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 400 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 466 (1982). A party may introduce evidence of other incidents to contradict a witness’s testimony if the proffered evidence relates to a similar incident occurring under substantially similar circumstanc…
Authorities Cited
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Campbell, 104 Fla. 274 (Fla. 1932)
- Chambers v. Loftin, 67 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1953)
- Ry. Express Agency, Inc. v. Haskell V. Fulmer, 227 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1969)
- Perret v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 299 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1974)
- Robinson v. Ebie Eavey, 104 Fla. 398 (Fla. 1932)
- Warn Indus. v. Geist, 343 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Auto Specialties Mfg. Co. & the Travelers Ins. Co. v. Boutwell, 335 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Seabron D. Short & the Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Allen, 254 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)