EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, A MISSOURI CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
AURELIO S. GARCIA AND ALINA GARCIA, HIS WIFE, 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.
Emerson Electric appeals a jury verdict in a products liability case where Garcia was injured by an allegedly defective retractable ladder. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court improperly allowed plaintiff's counsel to accuse Emerson of discovery misconduct before the jury and excluded admissible evidence of the ladder's safety history.
The court held that the trial court did not err in requiring an interrogatory verdict on the three theories of liability presented, as the two-issue rule does not require findings on every factual basis supporting a theory of liability. However, the court held that the trial court erred in excluding safety-history evidence of identical products used under substantially similar conditions, and in allowing plaintiff's counsel to accuse defendant's counsel of discovery misconduct before the jury without establishing a pretrial discovery violation.
[1] Evidence of a product's safety history is admissible if it pertains to the use of the same type of product under substantially similar conditions.
[2] The purpose of admitting evidence of a product's safety history is to demonstrate the product's dangerous character and the defendant's knowledge thereof.
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“Evidence of the safety-history of a product is admissible where the evidence pertains to the use of the same type of appliance or equipment, and is based on use of the product under substantially similar conditions.”
Establishes the standard for admissibility of product safety-history evidence in products liability cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGarcia suffered serious injuries in a fall from a retractable ladder manufactured by Emerson Electric. The plaintiff alleged the ladder collapsed due …
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 Discovery Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is taken from a judgment for the plaintiff entered on a jury verdict in a products liability case. Garcia was seriously injured in a fall from a retractable ladder, manufactured by the appellant, which allegedly collapsed owing to a design defect. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Three rulings of the trial court are raised as reversible error: (1) disallowing a verdict form as to each of the plaintiffs six theories of liability where Emerson would have been entitled to a directed verdict on at least four of the theories; (2) excluding evidence of the safety history of identical ladders; (3) allowing Garcia’s attorney to accuse Emerson’s counsel of discovery misconduct in the presence of the jury.
On the first point, the appellant’s argument is inaccurate. Only three theories of liability were raised by the plaintiff — negligent design, negligent failure to warn, and strict liability. An interrogatory verdict form was submitted to the jury on all three theories and it found liability on all theories. We reject the proposed extension of the two-issue rule to require a jury finding on every factual basis alleged in support of a theory of liability. See First Interstate Dev. Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536, 538 (Fla.1987) (the two-issue rule applies to those actions that can be brought on two theories of liability, where a single basis for damages applies).1 The remaining two points are meritorious and necessitate a new trial.
Evidence of the safety-history of a product is admissible where the evidence pertains to the use of the same type of appliance or equipment, and is based on use of the product under substantially similar conditions. Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Fulmer, 227 So. 2d 870 (Fla.1969); Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1984); Lasar Mfg. Co. v. Bachanov, 436 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Warn Indus, v. Geist, 343 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA) cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 680 (Fla.1977).
The purpose of product safety-history history is to show the dangerous character of the product and the defendant’s knowledge thereof. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 227 So. 2d at 872 (citing Chambers v. Loftin, 67 So. 2d 220 (Fla.1957)).
Conversely, such evidence could show that the product was not dangerous or that the defendant had no prior knowledge of the danger. 72 C.J.S.Supp. Products Liability § 79, at 139 (1975); 78 A.L.R.2d 460, 499 (1961).
Because the trial court sustained the plaintiffs objection to the safety-history evidence without reaching the relevancy question, Emerson’s evidence on the point must still be subjected to the test.
At several points during the course of the trial, and in the presence of the jury, Emerson’s counsel was accused of “fraud”, hiding evidence, putting up roadblocks to the discovery of relevant evidence, and picking and choosing the evidence it would produce in response to discovery demands. A series of inquiries by plaintiffs counsel, intended to persuade the jury that the defendants were concealing damaging evidence, were objected to by Emerson’s counsel.
The trial court’s overruling of the objections gave a tacit approval to the improper questioning, which became a feature of the trial. No pretrial discovery violation was ever established and, even if there had been evidence of a violation, an appropriate sanction was a matter for the court and not for the jury. See Pinakatt v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 394 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We have ordered new trials and roundly condemned equally egregious conduct and arguments in other cases. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Rosania, 546 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Bloch v. Addis, 493 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Borden, Inc. v. Young, 479 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 488 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1986).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
. The two-issue rule is a court-created policy which simplifies the work of the trial courts and limits the scope of proceedings on review. See Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough, 355 So. 2d 1181, 1186 (Fla.1977). It is applied where there is a failure to request an interrogatory verdict and a showing that the evidence would have supported the judgment on one or more of the theories presented.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Amlan, Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., 651 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…nctions, including sanctions having evidentiary import. Evidence related to the history of pretrial discovery conduct should normally not be a matter submitted for the jury’s consideration on the issues of liability. See Emerson Elec. Co. v. Garcia, 623 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). We distinguish cases in which the misconduct alleged is the destruction or unexplained disappearance of crucial evidence. In those cases, an instruction may be given concerning the inference that the withheld or missing evidence…
-
Eugene J. Strasser, M.D., P.A. v. Bose Yalamanchi, M.D., P.A., 783 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…tory of pre-trial discovery conduct should normally not be a matter submitted for the jury’s consideration on the issues of liability.” Amlan, Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., 651 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(citing Emerson Elec. Co. v.. Garcia, 623 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)). An exception exists, however, in cases such as this, “in which the misconduct alleged is the destruction or unexplained disappearance of crucial evidence.” Id. at 703. See also Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Valcin, 507 S…
-
SDG Dadeland Assocs., Inc. v. Anthony, 979 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…ting a fraud upon the court. Defense counsel also argued to the jury that Mrs. George had concealed evidence and violated discovery orders. This line of argument, even if not objected to, constitutes reversible error.”); Emerson Elec. Co. v. Garcia, 623 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (new trial ordered where plaintiffs' counsel accused defense counsel of fraud, hiding evidence, and putting up roadblocks to discovery). We find that given the absence of any evidence showing that either Dade-land or its counsel…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Doyle Wayne Scarbrough, 355 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977)
- First Interstate Dev. Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1987)
- Borden, Inc. v. Young, 479 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Lasar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Bachanov, 436 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Chambers v. Loftin, 67 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1953)
- Anne E. Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Ry. Express Agency, Inc. v. Haskell V. Fulmer, 227 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1969)
- Warn Indus. v. Geist, 343 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Edward J. Bloch, M.D. v. Kersten Watson Addis, 493 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Teresamma Pinakatt v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 394 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)