ROBERT RICE AND EVELYN RICE, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIE J. KELLY AND ANNIE M. KELLY D/B/A KELLY'S LAUNDROMAT AND OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN 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.
Robert Rice was injured in a fall at a laundromat owned by the Kellys and subsequently suffered a second fall that he attributed to dizziness from the first injury. The trial court improperly barred Rice from presenting evidence of causation between the two falls via a motion in limine, but this error was held harmless because the jury found against Rice on the underlying liability issue.
The trial court erred in granting the motion in limine that limited the appellant's claim for damages by preventing him from offering evidence of causation between the two falls. However, this error was harmless because the jury found for the appellees on the issue of liability.
[1] A trial court errs in granting a motion in limine that limits a party's claim for damages.
[2] An error in limiting a party's claim for damages is harmless when the jury finds for the opposing party on the issue of liability.
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“Although we believe the trial court erred in granting a motion in limine that had the effect of limiting appellants' claim for damages, we reluctantly conclude that such error was harmless in view of the jury's finding for the appellees on the issue of liability.”
Establishes the core holding: trial court error existed but was harmless due to jury verdict on liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Rice fell and injured his back and head at appellees' laundromat. Subsequently, Rice fell again and further injured his back, claiming the seco…
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 Motion In Limine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Although we believe the trial court erred in granting a motion in limine that had the effect of limiting appellants’ claim for damages, we reluctantly conclude that such error was harmless in view of the jury’s finding for the appellees on the issue of liability.
The record reflects that the appellant, Robert Rice, Jr., fell and injured his back and head at appellees’ laundromat. Sometime later, and according to Rice because of dizziness from his head injury at the laundromat, Rice fell again and further injured his back. Later, the doctors had a difficult time determining which fall caused Rice’s chronic back problems. The trial court refused to let Rice offer proof that his second fall was caused by the head injury suffered in the first fall. This was clearly error. In Dailey v. Multicon Development, Inc., 417 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.4th DCA 1982) we condemned the use of motions in limine to summarily dismiss a portion of a claim. That is precisely what occurred here by the use of an oral motion made without notice on the first day of trial.
The trial court granted the motion because there was no specific allegation in the complaint stating that the second fall was caused by the first. We are unaware of such a requirement. Cf. Eli Witt Cigar & Tobacco Co. v. Matatics, 55 So. 2d 549 (Fla.1951). In addition, the record reflects that Rice claimed in deposition and other discovery taken two years before trial that the second fall was caused by the first, and that a pretrial stipulation was filed several months before trial specifically stating that Rice was claiming that the second fall was caused by the first. As in Dailey we caution trial courts not to allow “motions in limine” to be used as unwritten and unnoticed motions for partial summary judgment or motions to dismiss.
ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and FEDER, RICHARD YALE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brock v. G.D. Searle & Co., 530 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ment if it is ultimately to be treated as a motion for summary judg [*431] ment. “[T]rial courts [should not] allow ‘motions in limine’ to be used as unwritten and unnoticed motions for partial summary judgment or motions to dismiss.” Rice v. Kelly, 483 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We also note that generally on a motion for summary judgment, it is the burden of the defendant to establish the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and not of the claimant to prove his cause of action. Heffeman…
-
Fouts v. Bowling, 596 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…e as a vehicle for presentation of an unnoticed motion for summary judgment.1 See Buy-Low Save Centers, Inc. v. Glinert, 547 So. 2d 1283, 1284 (Fla.4th DCA 1989); Brock v. G.D. Searle & Co., 530 So. 2d 428, 430-431 (Fla.lst DCA 1988); Rice v. Kelly, 483 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla.4th DCA 1986); Dailey v. Multicon Development, Inc., 417 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.4th DCA 1982)); see also Lombard v. Executive Elevator Serv., 545 [*96] So. 2d 453 (Fla.3d DCA 1989). We therefore reverse the final judgment.2 Reversed and remande…
-
Buy-Low Save Ctrs., Inc. v. Glinert, 547 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…ts have held that “trial courts should not allow motions in limine to be used as unwritten and unnoticed motions for partial summary judgment or motions to dismiss.” Brock v. G.D. Searle & Co., 530 So. 2d 428, 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Rice v. Kelly, 483 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Dailey v. Multicon Development, Inc., 417 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In the instant case, the order granting the motion in limine precluded Buy-Low from presenting relevant and material evidence crucial to the damage…
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
- Eli Witt Cigar & Tobacco Co. v. Matatics, 55 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1951)
- Dailey v. Multicon Dev., Inc., 417 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)