MARIE LAURENT, APPELLANT,

v.

UNIROYAL, INC., APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1987-11-24

No. 86-3106

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

515 So. 2d 1050 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1987) Positive Treatment

Cited by 12 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding rebuttal witness testimony and testimony regarding what the owner would have done if warned.

Facts & Procedural History

Appellant appealed an adverse final judgment, citing the trial court's refusal to allow rebuttal testimony and testimony about a failure to warn.…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Failure To Warn Rebuttal Evidence Cumulative Evidence Proximate Cause

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Warn cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

In Marie Laurent’s appeal from an adverse Final Judgment, she cites as error the trial court’s refusal to permit the introduction of a rebuttal witness’ testimony impeaching Uniroyal, Inc.’s expert witness and the trial court’s exclusion of testimony as to what the vehicle owner would have done if Uniroyal had warned against mixing types of tires. We affirm.

First, we find no error in the trial court’s exclusion of Laurent’s rebuttal testimony which was cumulative in nature and should have been presented during Laurent’s casein-chief. See Thomas v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 424 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Reeder v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., ⅜338 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Driscoll v. Morris, 114 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959).

Second, we find no error because Laurent’s accident expert testified that the failure to warn was a proximate cause of the accident, and since the proffered testimony was cumulative, its exclusion was harmless. See Thomas; Reeder. Furthermore, the record reflects that the cause of the accident was hotly disputed, that the jury considered many theories of the case, and that the issue of Uniroyal’s failure to warn was properly before the jury. See Giddens v. Denman Rubber Mfg. Co., 440 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Finding no basis for reversal, see Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough, 355 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1978); Gonzalez v. Leon, 511 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), we affirm.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Wellinghoff v. Ray Lopez, M.D., 538 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)

…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Laurent v. Uniroyal, Inc., 515 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 879 (Fla.1988); Brown v. Sims, 538 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).…
Rhodes v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 528 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)

…presented an expert witness who discounted overloading as the proximate cause of the accident. Thus, the trial court committed no reversible error in excluding rebuttal evidence which would have been cumulative in nature, Laurent v. Uniroyal, Inc., 515 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So. 2d 879 (Fla.1988), and, in any event, could have been submitted during the plaintiff’s case-in-chief. Appellants’ remaining issue has been considered and found to be without merit. Affirmed.…
Tamekia Love Dorvil v. Purolator Courier Corp., 578 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)

…accident. Beyond that, the trial court properly precluded the plaintiffs from calling a doctor as a rebuttal witness because the doctor’s testimony did not constitute proper rebuttal and was, in any event, cumulative. See Laurent v. Uniroyal, Inc., 515 So. 2d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 879 (Fla.1988); Dale v. Ford Motor Co., 409 So. 2d 232, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Driscoll v. Morns, 114 So. 2d 314, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). The final judgment as to the plaintiff Jean Dorvil, indivi…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Doyle Wayne Scarbrough, 355 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977)
Driscoll v. Morris, 114 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
Gonzalez v. Leon, 511 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
Thomas v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 424 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
Emmett Reeder v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 338 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
Giddens v. Denman Rubber Mfg. Co., 440 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw