THOMAS HOLMES, APPELLANT,
v.
REDLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND HOMESTEAD PAVING COMPANY, A FLORIDA 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.
The court held that evidence of a prior personal injury claim was properly admitted and that the issue of excluded deposition testimony was not preserved for review.
Appellant sued appellees for negligence after falling into an uncovered water meter hole. The jury found no negligence on the part of the appellees. A…
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 Proffer Of Excluded Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Thomas Holmes, appeals a final judgment in favor of appellees, Redland Construction Company, Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority, and Homestead Paving Company, on Holmes’s action for negligence. We affirm.
Holmes brought s.uit against appellees for injuries he allegedly sustained in 1982 when he fell into an uncovered water meter hole adjacent to a construction site. The jury returned a verdict in favor of all three appellees, based on a finding of no negligence.
Holmes’s primary contentions on appeal are: (1) the trial court erred in admitting evidence regarding another personal injury claim brought by Holmes for an accident which occurred in 1987; and (2) the trial court erred in failing to allow the deposition of Thomas Harrow, a Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority employee, to be read to the jury.
With respect to Holmes’s first point, we rule that the evidence relating to the personal injury claim brought by Holmes for the 1987 accident, was properly admitted. This evidence was relevant because it tended to prove that Holmes’s presently claimed injuries resulted from a subsequent accident. See Brackin v. Boles, 452 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1984); Williams v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 443 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
On Holmes’s second point, that the trial court erred in failing to allow the deposition of Harrow to be read to the jury, we rule Holmes did not preserve this issue for review. The rule is well settled that when a party fails to make a proffer of excluded evidence, any alleged error is not preserved for review. Callihan v. Turtle Kraals, Ltd., 523 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Tobin v. Alfieri Maserati, S.P.A., 513 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So. 2d 586 (Fla.1988).
Having concluded that a third contention raised by Holmes is without merit, the final judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Brien v. Buddecke, 608 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Holmes v. Redland Constr. Co., 557 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Kinya v. Lifter, Inc., 489 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 496 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1986); Barth v. Florida State Constr. Serv., Inc., 363 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 1979).…
-
Mastec N. Am., Inc. v. Morakis, 288 So. 3d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…d to proffer the additional expert testimony it sought to introduce and without a proffer, it is impossible for us to entertain the defendants’ claim that the expert’s testimony would not have been cumulative. See Holmes v. Redland Constr. Co., 557 So. 2d 911, 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We find the remaining arguments the defendants make regarding the exclusion of expert opinion testimony do not merit reversal. Finally, the defendants contend that the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiff’s a…
-
Maxwell v. State, 576 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…rturned it. This court and the fifth district court of appeal have followed Lambert and Ree and disapproved departure sentences on revocation of probation or community control above the one-cell bump-up authorized in rule 3.701(d)14. Teer v. State, 557 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Pringal v. State, 564 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Maddox v. State, 553 So. 2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (While two violations of probation for the same offense have been held to be a valid ground for departure in Adams,…
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
- Brackin v. Boles, 452 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1984)
- Williams v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 443 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Callihan v. Turtle Kraals, Ltd., 523 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Tobin v. Alfieri Maserati, 513 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)