CHARLES LANGSTON, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES KING, ETC., DURA-STILT CORPORATION, AND CONSOLIDATED ALUMINUM CORPORATION, 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.
In this products liability appeal, the court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the defendants but held that the trial court erred in preventing cross-examination of the defendants' expert witness about compensation agreements, though the error was deemed harmless.
The trial court erred in refusing to allow cross-examination about expert compensation agreements; however, the error was harmless and did not warrant reversal. As a minimum, parties have the right to elicit the existence and terms of any agreement for compensation paid to an expert witness.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in permitting a witness to be questioned about their interest in a case.
[2] Parties have a right to elicit the existence and terms of any agreement for compensation paid to an expert witness.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“we believe that as a minimum the parties should have the right to elicit the existence and terms of any agreement for compensation to be paid to an expert witness”
Establishes the court's holding that cross-examination about expert compensation is a minimum requirement, even while acknowledging trial court discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Langston brought a products liability action against Dura-Stilt Corporation and Consolidated Aluminum Corporation. The case proceeded to trial…
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 Witness Bias cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Judge.
This is an appeal by appellant, the plaintiff below, from an adverse judgment and jury verdict suffered in a products liability case brought against the appellees.
Most of the alleged errors complained of on appeal involve the admission of expert testimony, and in our view all of the alleged errors involve discretionary calls by the trial court. We have reviewed each of appellant’s claims and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. However, although we conclude that the error was harmless under the circumstances of this case, we also hold it was error for the trial court to refuse to allow the appellees’ expert to be questioned about any agreement for compensation he had with appellee.
The Florida Supreme Court has stated that the trial court has broad discretion in permitting a witness to be questioned about his interest in the case, and, on facts similar to those present herein, has held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Pandula v. Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358 (Fla.1940). Also see H. I. Holding Co. v. Dade County, 129 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 133 So. 2d 646 (Fla.1961); Lipsius v. Bristol-Myers Co., 265 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). We, of course, are bound to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling, and have done so here. However, while we agree that the trial court has broad discretion in determining the extent to which a witness may be examined about any interest or bias, we believe that as a minimum the parties should have the right to elicit the existence and terms of any agreement for compensation to be paid to an expert witness.
The day has long since passed when, as was apparently the case in Pandula v. Fonseca, the only expert appearing in court is the treating physician of the plaintiff. Much of the modern day litigation involves a “battle of experts.” Under these circumstances we believe the trier of fact, who ultimately must make some assessment of the credibility of such witnesses, is entitled to know the extent of any financial arrangements made to secure their participation in the case.
In accordance with the above, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
LETTS, C. J., and HERSEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pandula v. Pinkey Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395 (Fla. 1940)
- H. I. Holding Co. v. Dade Cnty., 129 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Rezeau v. City of Miami, 133 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1961)
- Howard v. Howard, 133 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1961)
- Lipsius v. Bristol-Myers Co., 265 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)