LEONARD BROS. INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS AND RIGGERS CO., INC., AND CARRIERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE BURKE COMPANY, APPELLEE
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 reversed a products liability judgment and ordered a new trial because the trial court erred in excluding expert witnesses whose testimony was based on a sufficient chain of custody and similarity of the tested metal lifting inserts to those allegedly involved in the accident.
A trial court commits reversible error by excluding expert witnesses in a products liability case when sufficient evidence establishes both a chain of custody for the subject inserts and substantial similarity between the tested inserts and the allegedly defective insert involved in the accident.
[1] In a products liability action, expert witness testimony regarding testing of allegedly defective products is admissible when sufficient chain of custody and evidence of…
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 intelligenceLeonard Bros. Industrial Contractors and Carriers Insurance Company brought a products liability action against The Burke Company involving metal lift…
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 Substantial Similarity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a final judgment entered upon an adverse jury verdict in a products liability action. The sole point on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error in excluding two crucial expert witnesses called by the plaintiff.
We agree and reverse for a new trial based on a holding that (1) a sufficient chain of custody of the subject metal lifting inserts was adduced below to permit a jury inference that the inserts tested by the expert witnesses were the alleged defective inserts involved in the accident, and (2) sufficient evidence was adduced below to permit a jury inference that the inserts tested were the same as, or substantially similar to, the insert which allegedly broke and arguably caused this accident. We have not overlooked the fact that contrary inferences could also be drawn based on the evidence adduced below, but conclude that a jury issue was presented on this issue. See Schwartz v. M.J.M. Corp., 368 So. 2d 91, 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); § 90.105(2) law revision council note, Fla.Stat.Ann. (1979); see also Fay v. Mincey, 454 So. 2d 587, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Vitt v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 340 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); cf. Musleh v. Division of Admin., State Dept. of Transp., 299 So. 2d 101, 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
The final judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yorkville Indus., Inc. v. Milks, 541 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Leonard Bros. Indus. Contractors v. Burke Co., 529 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Gorday v. Faris, 523 So. 2d [*655] 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 534 So. 2d 399 (Fla.1988); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McKenzie, 502 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1987); Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co.…
Authorities Cited
- FAY v. Mincey, 454 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Vitt v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 340 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Musleh v. Division OF Administration, 299 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Rhea Schwartz and Herman Schwartz v. M. J. M. Corp., 368 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)