GERDA L. KENNEDY AND ROBERT A. KENNEDY, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
WALTER J. BRAGO AND BRAGO TRUCKING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cumulative Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A judgment was entered on a jury verdict fixing the plaintiffs’ damages at $26,-000 as a result of an automobile collision which aggravated Mrs. Kennedy’s pre-ex-isting injuries. The Kennedys’ single contention on appeal is that the trial court’s exclusion of one of their medical experts constitutes reversible error. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the proffered testimony — that there was a degeneration in Mrs. Kennedy’s condition after the accident — was cumulative and therefore its exclusion was harmless. Crawford v. Shivashankar, 474 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (any error in the exclusion of expert’s medical opinion was harmless in that it would have been cumulative of the testimony of four other physicians); Aiken v. Miller, 298 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); see also Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Estate of Castaño, 544 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (no showing that the limitation placed on the number of experts permitted to testify affected the jury verdict).
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Katos v. Robert B. Cushing, D.D.S. & Robert B. Cushing, D.D.S., P.A., 601 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ractice action. The evidence excluded was essentially cumulative, and the admitted medical testimony challenged here was not so prejudicial as to destroy the jury’s impartiality. For these reasons, a new trial is not warranted. See Kennedy v. Brago, 544 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Jefferson Disposal Co. v. Green, 311 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Competent and substantial evidence was presented from which the jury could have concluded, in its general verdict, that the plaintiff was not lulled into a six…
-
Dade Cnty. v. Midic Realty, Inc., 549 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…l unless it appears to so prejudice the result as to indicate an abuse of discretion.” Driscoll v. Morris, 114 So. 2d 314, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). In this case, the proffered testimony was cumulative and its exclusion was harmless. Kennedy v. Brago, 544 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Crawford v. Shivashankar, 474 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). As to the second point, we find that the trial court’s award of $30,000 in appraiser’s fees did not constitute an abuse of discretion.. It is the duty of the court to…
Authorities Cited
- Crawford v. Latha Shivashankar & Allstate Ins. Co., 474 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Aiken v. Miller, 298 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Est. OF Pedro Castano, 544 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)