SOUTHERN TRENCHING, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
IGNACIO R. DIAGO, 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.
Southern Trenching appeals a $1,087,000 personal injury judgment. The court reverses and remands for a new trial on all issues due to erroneous exclusion of relevant testimony on liability and the plaintiff's deliberate concealment of a concurrent automobile accident involving the same injuries, which constituted fraud upon the court.
The judgment is reversed and a new trial on all issues is required. The erroneous exclusion of relevant testimony on liability mandates reversal. Additionally, the plaintiff's deliberate concealment of the automobile accident three weeks before trial, with counsel's knowledge and connivance, constituted fraud upon the court that infected the proceedings and required denial of the damage verdict.
[1] A new trial on all issues is required when relevant testimony on negligence and legal causation is erroneously excluded.
[2] A jury verdict infected by a plaintiff's deliberate concealment of a material fact, such as a subsequent accident causing similar injuries, will not be permitted to stand…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“No legal proceeding which is infected by conduct of this kind may or will be approved.”
Establishes that deliberate concealment of evidence constitutes fraud upon the court requiring reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff was injured in an incident allegedly caused by the defendant's negligence on November 27, 1987. Three weeks before trial, the plaintiff …
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 Attorney Ethics cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The defendant appeals from a $1,087,000 judgment in a personal injury action. We reverse for a new trial on all issues.
As to liability, this result is required because of the erroneous exclusion of relevant testimony on the issues of negligence and legal causation. Hobart Corp. v. Siegle, 1992 WL 43201 (Fla. 3d DCA, Case nos. 90-2595 & 90-1208, opinion filed, March 10, 1992) [17 FLW D679]; Graphic Assocs. v. Riviana Restaurant Corp., 461 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Steiger v. Massachusetts Casualty Ins. Co., 273 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Zabner v. Howard Johnson’s Inc., 227 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).1
The jury verdict on damages may not be permitted to stand because the plaintiff— with the knowledge and connivance of his counsel2 — deliberately concealed the fact that, three weeks before the trial, he was in an automobile accident involving the same injuries. He thus falsely misled the court and jury that his damages could have been caused only by the defendant’s negligence. No legal proceeding which is infected by conduct of this kind may or will be approved. Sledge v. Richards, 592 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and cases cited; Office Depot, Inc. v. Miller, 584 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); McFarlin v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 581 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Colonnell v. Mitchels, 317 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); see Smith v. University Medical Center, 559 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Under the circumstances presented, the denial of the defendant’s Rule 1.540 post-trial motion based on fraud and newly discovered evidence was even more than an egregious abuse of discretion.3 It was subversive of the basic and sublime principle that the purpose of our system of justice is to seek the truth.
Reversed and remanded.
. Our opinion makes it unnecessary directly to consider the appellant’s point concerning section 768.81(3), Florida Statutes (1991). By the time of the retrial, the supreme court may have settled the issue by resolving the conflict between Fabre v. Marin, 597 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) and Messmer v. Teacher’s Ins. Co., 588 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
. It should not be, but obviously is necessary again to point out that
the attempts of ... attorneys to secure victory by the failure to reveal a known and obviously decisive fact cannot be countenanced. See Fla.Bar Rules Prof.Conduct Rule 4-3.3 ("(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) Make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; (2) Fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by his client_"); Fla.Bar Rules Prof.Conduct Rule 4-3.3 comment (“There are circumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation.”) (footnote omitted).
Sharff, Wittmer & Kurtz, P.A. v. Messana, 581 So. 2d 906, 908-09 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (Schwartz, C.J., specially concurring), and cases cited at n. 2, review denied, 592 So. 2d 681 (Fla.1991). Although past experience tells us that doing so is likely an exercise in futility, we hereby call the impropriety of the lawyers’ conduct to the attention of the Florida Bar. . We find it particularly offensive that the trial judge actually saw fit to praise the plaintiffs disingenuousness:
Plaintiff was examined by two defense experts (a medical expert Dr. Pratt and a Vocational Rehabilitation expert, Dr. Deutsch) after the April accident and before the trial, Plaintiff did not tell either expert of the April accident because, in his own words, "They never asked me! I was told not to volunteer.” Would that all witnesses would be so direct! There was no testimony from either expert concerning direct questions about accidents either before or after November 27, 1987. Since he wasn't asked specific questions about any other accidents or injuries, he didn’t volunteer. [emphasis supplied]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ACandS, Inc. v. Redd, 703 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…reviewed here, which may have materially affected the defense of the consortium claim. Whether these material mispresentations are considered individually or collectively, defendant is entitled to a new trial. See Southern Trenching, Inc. v. Diago, 600 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Sledge v. Richards, 592 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); McFarlin v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 581 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Kline v. Belco, Ltd., 480 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Roberto v. Allstate Ins. Co., 457 So. 2d 1148 (Fla.…
-
Johnnides v. Amoco OIL Co., Inc., 778 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…A 2000); Fonticoba v. State, 725 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Izquierdo v. State, 724 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Lewis v. State, 711 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), review denied, 725 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1998); Southern Trenching, Inc. v. Diago, 600 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 613 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1992); Sharff, Wittmer & Kurtz, P.A. v. Messana, 581 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), review denied, 592 So. 2d 681 (Fla.1991); Rapid Credit Coip. v. Sunset Park Centre, Ltd., 566 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3…
-
Ivan Barrios, M.D. v. Darrach, 629 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…learly prejudiced him. See Office Depot, Inc. v. Miller, 584 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). In sum, here, the jury may not have been presented with all the facts necessary to make an appropriate determination. See Southern Trenching, Inc. v. Diago, 600 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 613 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1992); Steiger v. Mass. Cas. Ins. Co., 273 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and award the defendant a new trial. . The type of surgery to perform on such a fracture w…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Off. Depot, Inc. v. Miller, 584 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Zabner v. Howard Johnson's Inc. of Fla., 227 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Graphic Assocs., Inc. v. Riviana Rest. Corp., 461 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Alcides Castro v. State, 597 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Messmer v. Teacher's Ins. Co., 588 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Steiger v. Mass. Cas. Ins. Co., 273 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Colonnell v. Mitchels, 317 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Smith v. Univ. Med. Ctr., Inc., 559 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Sharff, Wittmer & Kurtz, P.A. v. Messana, 581 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Aquilla McFARLIN v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 581 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)