BROWARD COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
KATHRYN C. CENTO, AND PAT CENTO, HER HUSBAND, 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.
Broward County appealed a jury verdict in a personal injury case, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing testimony from a physician it had originally hired and named as an expert witness but later removed from its witness list. The Fourth District affirmed, holding that since the County had initially hired and formally named the physician as a trial witness, the trial court properly denied the motion in limine seeking to exclude references to him as the County's expert.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion in limine. Since Broward County hired and named Dr. Wallquist as a trial witness, the trial judge properly allowed the plaintiff to reference him as the County's expert and to present his videotaped deposition testimony, distinguishing the case from prior authority that had prohibited such references when the expert was retained only as a consulting expert and never formally named as a trial witness.
[1] A party may refer to a physician who examined the opposing party's injured plaintiff as "the County's doctor" when that physician was hired and named as a trial witness b…
[2] A trial court does not err in denying a motion in limine to exclude a physician hired by the County as a witness when the physician was properly identified on the witness…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The County's motion in limine sought to exclude Dr. Wallquist as a witness or, alternatively, to prohibit any reference to him as having been hired originally by the County.”
Establishes the nature of the motion the trial court denied and the County's request on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKathryn Cento sued Broward County for injuries from a traffic accident. The County admitted liability, and the case proceeded to trial on damages. The…
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 Motion In Limine cases and more on FLexlaw
HOY, JOHN J., Associate Judge.
Kathryn Cento sued Broward County to recover damages for injuries suffered in a traffic accident between her automobile and a bus owned by the County. The County admitted liability and the case went to trial on the issue of damages. The County appeals from a jury award, claiming that the trial judge erred by denying a motion in limine directed to the testimony of a physician who examined the plaintiff under rule 1.360, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm.
Broward County had Ms. Cento submit to an examination by Dr. John L. Wallquist on March 31, 1991. The County listed Dr. Wallquist as an expert on its witness list filed May 3, 1991. Plaintiff took a videotape deposition of Dr. Wallquist on June 25, 1991. The doctor gave his opinion that Ms. Cento had suffered a permanent injury as a result of the auto accident. Broward County filed a motion in limine on July 2, 1991, and on July 9, 1991, filed a revised expert witness list deleting Dr. Wallquist’s name.
The County’s motion in limine sought to exclude Dr. Wallquist as a witness or, alternatively, to prohibit any reference to him as having been hired originally by the County. The trial judge denied the motion entirely. During trial, the plaintiff played the videotape deposition. The County objected to the disclosure of the fact of hiring him on the videotape and further objected to the many references by plaintiffs counsel to Dr. Wallquist as “the County’s doctor.”
Relying on Sun Charm Ranch, Inc. v. Orlando, 407 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), and Jacksonville Transp. Auth. v. ASC Assocs., 559 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), the defendant argues that the trial judge should have prohibited any reference to Dr. Wallquist as the County’s expert. In Sun Charm, a condemnee was not allowed to ask an expert witness whether he had been hired by the condemnor city in connection with the condemnation case. The expert was hired only as a consulting expert; he was not hired or named as a trial expert. Jacksonville Transportation Authority followed Sun Charm, holding that the condemnee improperly suggested that the condemnor had hired an expert and then failed to use him. The expert had been retained by the condemnor but had not been named as a trial witness. In this case, Broward County hired and named Dr. Wallquist as a trial witness. Under these facts the trial judge did not err in denying the motion in limine. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wane Bogosian v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 817 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…Fla. 5th DCA 1981). “We question the fairness of a rule that would require a party to explain and apologize to the jury for not having called an expert witness to testify.” Sun Charm, 407 So. 2d at 940. State Farm relies on Broward County v. Cento, 611 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), but we think that case is distinguishable. There the plaintiff sued for injuries resulting from a collision between her automobile and a bus owned by the County. The County admitted liability. The issue for trial was damages. T…
-
Milburn v. State, 742 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…terson’s civil rights action) (footnote omitted). We find persuasive the reasoning of these decisions and conclude that the question at issue here was error. The Fourth District, however, has reached a contrary holding. In Broward, County v. Cento, 611 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), the court found no error in a personal injury plaintiff calling the County’s medical expert as a trial witness and referring to the fact that the doctor had been originally hired by the County. The court distinguished Sun Charm…
-
Mariann Peterson v. Willie, 81 F.3d 1033 (11th Cir. 1996)…lled at trial. Unlike the experts in the eases above who were merely consulted in preparation for trial, Dr. Lichtblau was actually designated as a Rule 26(b)(4)(A)(i) witness expected to testify at trial. Appellees cite Broward County v. Cento, 611 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA, 1993), in support of their position that this difference is material. While appellees are correct that the cases cited by Peterson do not address this difference, we do not find this difference controlling in all respects. Once a wi…
Authorities Cited
- SUN Charm Ranch, Inc. v. The City OF Orlando, 407 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Fla. Prod. Eng'g & Feisco v. Lowd, 559 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)