LINDA R. GAVIN AND JOHN GAVIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
PROMO BRANDS USA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Linda and John Gavin appealed an adverse jury verdict in a premises liability case stemming from a fall at a liquor store. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, rejecting challenges to the admissibility of blood alcohol test results and expert testimony.
The court held that the blood alcohol test results were properly admitted because they were sufficiently authenticated through testimony establishing chain of custody and proper testing procedures. The exclusion of rebuttal blood test results and expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion because such evidence was cumulative to expert testimony already presented to the jury.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by admitting the results of a serum blood alcohol test administered in connection with medical treatment when the chain of cus…
[2] The chain of custody of evidence presents a mixed question of law and fact, with the court determining initial admissibility and the fact finder assessing evidentiary wei…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“At the outset, chain of custody presents a mixed question of law and fact in which the court determines whether a sufficient showing has been made of the item's genuineness. Once admitted, however, it is the fact finder who determines its evidentiary weight.”
Establishes the legal standard for chain of custody analysis and the allocation of responsibility between trial court and jury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLinda Gavin slipped and fell while leaving Big Daddy's Liquor Store, suffering a fractured ankle requiring surgery. Before visiting the store, Gavin h…
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 Evidentiary Weight cases and more on FLexlaw
JOHN E. FENNELLY, Associate Judge.
Appellants, Linda and John Gavin, plaintiffs below, appeal an adverse jury verdict. We affirm.
Appellants raise two principal grounds as the basis for appeal. First, appellants allege that the trial court erred when it admitted the results of a serum blood alcohol test administered in connection with treatment at Plantation General Hospital. Second, appellants challenge the trial court’s exclusion of blood test results offered to rebut appellee’s test results, as well as expert witness testimony concerning appellants.
The facts adduced at trial indicate that as appellant Linda Gavin left Big Daddy’s Liquor Store she slipped and fell on the premises. She suffered a fractured ankle that required surgery. Appellant testified that before she went to Big Daddy’s, she drank Cognac and ate chicken wings.
After the accident a Dr. Reitman treated her at Plantation General Hospital. As part of a routine surgical workup, Dr. Reit-man ordered a serum blood alcohol test. Hospital personnel drew a blood sample which was taken on an emergency basis by courier to an outside laboratory, Medpath. The courier delivered the blood sample directly to the testing facility. A Medpath technician received the specimen, immediately performed the test, and telephoned the test results to the hospital.
At the outset, chain of custody presents a mixed question of law and fact in which the court determines whether a sufficient showing has been made of the item’s genuineness. Once admitted, however, it is the fact finder who determines its evidentiary weight.
We find the facts at bar distinguishable from those in Kurynka v. Tamarac Hospital Corp., Inc., 542 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), cited by appellants. The record before us amply demonstrates the evidence in question was sufficiently authenticated so as to be prima facie admissible. The Medpath technician testified as to the emergency practice routinely employed to collect samples from the hospital and transport them to Medpath. He further testified that he personally received the sample which bore appellant’s name and hospital identification number. His testimony included a description of the instrument used to test the blood and the safeguards he employed to insure its accuracy.
Appellants next argue that the trial court erred in excluding blood test results offered to rebut appellee’s test results and expert witness testimony concerning appellants. We find this evidence was cumulative to expert testimony already before the jury. Thus, we hold that no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated. See Thomas v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 424 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Appellants’ remaining points do not demonstrate that any error which may have occurred warrants reversal.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Love v. Garcia, 611 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…io, 468 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA), review den., 480 So. 2d 1293 (Fla.1985). .Our opinion does not cite FEC section 90.-803(6) or discuss how its text applied to the facts and circumstances. . By way of contrast, in Gavin v. Promo Brands USA Inc., 578 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), while we affirmed the trial court’s decision to admit the test result evidence, we carefully noted that a proper predicate for its admission had been laid. The laboratory technician testified as to methodology for the collection…
-
Vernice L. Brown v. Crim. Just. Standards & Training Comm'n, 667 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…s into evidence. In Southern Bakeries, the court dealt with the refusal to admit relevant evidence. In the instant case, we deal with the weight given by the Hearing Officer as trier of fact to admitted evidence. See Gavin v. Promo Brands USA, Inc., 578 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Having found that the Commission improperly reweighed evidence contrary to Heifetz, we reverse and remand for entry of an order approving the Hearing Officer’s report. GLICKSTEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
-
Behrens v. State, 830 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…her there were two or four swabs do not show that there was a probability of tampering. The trial court therefore properly admitted the evidence, leaving the weight accorded the evidence to be determined by the jury. Gavin v. Promo Brands USA, Inc., 578 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Nor did the court err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. Affirmed. FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 424 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Kurynka v. Tamarac Hosp. Corp., Inc., 542 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)