OTTO JULIUS KARCH AND FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
DARLENE MARIE MACKAY AND JOSEPH B. MACKAY, HER HUSBAND, RESPONDENTS
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.
Florida appellate court granted certiorari to quash discovery orders requiring production of an employee's accident statements to his employer, holding such statements constitute protected work product under Hickman v. Taylor absent unusual circumstances.
Statements obtained by an employer from an employee regarding an accident in anticipation of litigation are work product protected from discovery absent very unusual circumstances.
[1] Statements obtained by an employer from an employee regarding an accident in anticipation of litigation constitute work product protected from discovery absent very unusu…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKarch gave statements to his employer, Florida Power & Light Company, regarding his involvement in an automobile accident. Darlene Marie MacKay, injur…
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 Hickman V. Taylor cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
By petition for writ of common law certiorari, Karch and Florida & Light Company seek quashal of discovery orders requiring the production of statements which Karch gave to his employer, Florida Power & Light, regarding Karch’s involvement in an automobile accident. The respondent, Darlene Marie MacKay, is one of the persons injured in said accident and one of the plaintiffs in pending litigation arising therefrom.
The courts of this state have been consistent since Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), in holding that, absent very unusual circumstances, statements obtained by an employer regarding an accident in anticipation of litigation are work product and not subject to adversarial discovery. Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla.1970); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Limeburner, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The reports sought in this case appear to fall neatly within the protected category and allowance of their discovery constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. Accordingly, the petition for writ of common law certiorari is granted and those parts of the orders under review that require petitioners to produce statements that Karch gave to Florida Power & Light Company regarding the accident are quashed.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and BERANEK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fed. Express Corp. v. Cantway, 778 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ion, constitute work product and are not subject to discovery without the aforementioned showing. See Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426, 427-28 (Fla.1952). Internal investigative reports are covered by the rule. See Karch v. MacKay, 453 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); New Life Acres, Inc. v. Strickland, 436 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Limeburner, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Such…
-
Airocar, Inc. v. Goldman, 474 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…aterialized. There is no testimony here to reach the same conclusion. If such were the case, Mr. LeFebvre would have undoubtedly so testified. Moreover, the driver’s written report here is poles apart from this court’s decision in Karch v. MacKay, 453 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which involved statements taken by an employer regarding an accident. We have followed Karch in this case as to the investigative material. We recognize that our companion court in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d…
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gonyea, 455 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…such, should be characterized as business records, not work product. We are not persuaded by this argument and hold that the statements of witnesses taken by Winn-Dixie’s insurance adjuster were “in anticipation of litigation.” See Karch v. MacKay, 453 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Wackenhut Corp. v. Crant-Heisz Enterprises, Inc., 451 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The Gonyeas further argue that even assuming the trial court correctly…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1947)
- Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Varsenig Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Limeburner, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Cipolloni v. Lewis, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)