MELROSE NURSERY, INC., JULIO CESAR ESPINAL AND FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
PHYLLIS HUNT, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudicial Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse and remand for a new trial because it was error to exclude the court-appointed expert witness when, al though the witness was not in the defendants’ pre-trial catalogue, the plaintiff had had possession of the expert’s report for several months prior to the trial and would, therefore, not have been prejudiced by his testimony. See Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla.1981); First Republic Corp. of America v. Hayes, 431 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Haines v. Haines, 417 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
We note, without the necessity of having to decide the issue, that although the plaintiff’s introduction into evidence of the $300,000 liability policy limit might have been harmless error in light of the jury verdict of $40,000, see Odoms v. Travelers Insurance Co., 339 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1976); Josey v. Futch, 254 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 1971); Stecher v. Pomeroy, 253 So. 2d 421 (Fla.1971), it was error nonetheless, see Odoms; Josey; Stecher; Beta Eta House of Tallahassee v. Gregory, 237 So. 2d 163 (Fla.1970); such a practice by trial counsel is disapproved, and should not be repeated.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gold, Vann & White, P.A. v. DeBERRY, 639 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…arent that much of the language read to the jury made improper reference to Dr. Thornton’s insurance coverage. It is hornbook law that a jury should not learn of the existence of insurance coverage or insurance limits. Melrose Nursery, Inc. v. Hunt, 443 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). See, e.g., Beta Eta House Corp. v. Gregory, 237 So. 2d 163, 165 (Fla.1970) (existence or amount of insurance has no bearing on the issue of liability and damages and such reference was reversible error); Craft v. Kramer, 571 So.…
-
Suarez-Burgos v. Morhaim, 745 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…tness to provide testimony on one subject area, it was error to exclude the witness’ testimony on another subject area where the opposing party was on notice at deposition that other areas might be addressed at trial); Melrose Nursery, Inc. v. Hunt, 443 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (error to exclude an expert witness who had not been listed where, opposing counsel had possession of the witness’ report several months prior to trial); Ganey v. Goodings Million Dollar Midway, Inc., 360 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. & Daniel J. Thomas v. Holli R. Thorne, 110 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the testimony of Dr. Knezevieh. See also Chin v. Caiaffa, 42 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA [*72] 2010); Phillips v. Ficarra, 618 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Melrose Nursery, Inc. v. Hunt, 443 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The prejudice the trial court’s ruling caused State Farm and Mr. Thomas in limiting Dr. Knezevich’s testimony was compounded by the use Ms. Thorne’s counsel made of his testimony in closing argument, as discussed below. B. The…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981)
- Beta ETA House Corp. v. Gregory, 237 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1970)
- In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 253 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1971)
- First Republic Corp. OF Am. v. Hayes, 431 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Odoms v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 339 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1976)
- Josey v. Futch, 254 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 1971)
- Studstill v. State, 417 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)