KLOSTER CRUISE, LTD., D/B/A NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGUERITE RENTZ, 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.
Norwegian Cruise Line appealed a trial court's decision to allow an expert to present weather data from the National Climatic Data Center as the basis for his opinion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the data and that any potential error was harmless.
The trial court acted within its discretion in allowing the expert to present the underlying weather data on direct examination because the data was a starting point requiring further expert analysis to apply to the specific harbor. Even assuming the data should not have been admitted, any error was harmless because the expert's opinion itself was admissible under Florida Statute § 90.704, and the defendant presented no contrary expert opinion.
[1] An expert witness may present underlying data as the basis for their opinion, even if the data itself is not independently admissible, provided the expert conducts furthe…
[2] An expert witness does not act as a mere conduit for inadmissible hearsay when they analyze and apply underlying data to form their expert opinion.
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 trial court acted within its discretion in allowing the expert on direct examination to present the data as the basis for his expert opinion. That is so because the underlying data was the beginning point for analysis, but some further analysis was required by the expert in order to apply the data to the harbor at Philipsburg, St. Maarten.”
Establishes the court's holding that trial courts have discretion to allow experts to present underlying data when the expert performs analysis to apply it to specific circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trial occurred involving a cruise ship and a passenger (Rentz). An expert witness presented weather data from the National Climatic Data Center on d…
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 Expert Testimony Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Assuming for present purposes that the weather data from the National Climatic Data Center were not independently admissible,* the trial court acted within its discretion in allowing the expert on direct examination to present the data as the basis for his expert opinion. That is. so because the underlying data was the beginning point for analysis, but some further analysis was required by the expert in order to apply the data to the harbor at Philipsburg, St. Maarten. See Sikes v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, Co., 429 So. 2d 1216, 1222-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Michael H. Graham and Robert S. Glazier, Handbook of Florida Evidence § 704.1 (Second Edition 1996). We do not think that the expert acted as a mere conduit for inadmissible hearsay, as described in such cases as Gerber v. Iyengar, 725 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Nixon v. State, 694 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Maklakiewicz v. Berton, 652 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Riggins v. Mariner Boat Works, Inc., 545 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); and Dept. of Corrections v. Williams, 549 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
Assuming for purposes of discussion, however, that the defendant’s objection should have been sustained and that the underlying weather data should not have been placed before the jury on direct examination, we conclude that any error was entirely harmless. The expert’s opinion on wind speed and direction was admissible even if the underlying data were not, see § 90.704, Fla. Stat. (1997), and defendant presented no expert opinion to the contrary. In view of that fact and the other evidence in the case, the error (if any) was entirely harmless.
Affirmed.
*
But see § 90.803(8), Fla. Stat. (1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duss v. Martin A. Garcia, M.D., 80 So. 3d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…n re S.E., 946 So. 2d 620, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Appellees posit that it is permissible for an expert to testify about the results of a government study such as the NIH study at issue here. For support, they rely on Kloster Cruise, Ltd. v. Rentz, 733 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), and Houghton v. Bond, 680 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). At issue in Kloster Cruise was whether an expert witness could testify about weather data from the National Climatic Data Center. The court held that, assuming the data wa…
-
Linn v. Basil D. Fossum, 894 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…more than conversations with a purported bystander. Id. at 1223. By quite straightforward analogy, the rule in Sikes is that under section 90.704, an expert may not pin an opinion solely upon inadmissible evidence. See Kloster Cruise Ltd. v. Rentz, 733 So. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (allowing expert opinion where the underlying data, although not independently admissible, “was the beginning point for analysis, but some further analysis was required by the expert in order to apply the data”). In Gerber…
-
J.J. v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, 174 So. 3d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…356 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). When an expert has considered and testified regarding' such, facts or data, we have observed that an alleged error in actually admitting the facts or data into evidence may be entirely harmless. Kloster Cruise, Ltd. v. Rentz, 733 So. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Such an analysis applies to J.J.’s hearsay objections in the present case. Although we affirm the Agency’s final order, we acknowledge the important pro bono efforts expended for JJ.’s benefit by the Children’s Home Societ…
Authorities Cited
- Sikes v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 429 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Riggins v. Mariner Boat Works, Inc., 545 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Maklakiewicz v. Berton, 652 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Dep't of Corr. v. Hank Jady Williams, 549 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Gerber v. Ramanuja Iyengar, M.D., 725 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Nixon v. State, 694 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)