BETH DEBRA BERLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM ROLDAN AND DINORAH ROLDAN, 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.
Berlin appeals a jury verdict awarding damages to the Roldans in a personal injury case. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages, finding that the trial court erred by excluding testimony from a property manager that would have contradicted the Roldans' claim of total disability.
The trial court abused its discretion in excluding the witness testimony because there was no prejudice to the plaintiff in the form of surprise—the plaintiff did not dispute the truthfulness of the excluded evidence. A new trial limited to the issue of damages is required because the excluded testimony was material to the plaintiff's central claim of total disability.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by excluding the testimony of an unlisted witness when the objecting party would not suffer prejudice in the form of surprise.
[2] When allowing an unlisted witness to testify would not be unfair to the objecting party, the testimony should be permitted.
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“When a trial court exercises its discretion as to whether an unlisted witness should be allowed to testify, it should be guided in large part by whether there will be prejudice to the objecting party in the form of surprise.”
Establishes the legal standard for admitting unlisted witnesses—the primary concern is whether surprise or unfair prejudice would result to the objecting party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. Roldan claimed total disability from injuries sustained in an accident and sought damages. The defense sought to call a property manager as an unl…
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 Prejudice To Objecting Party cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
We reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, concluding that the trial court erred in not allowing the defense to call an unlisted witness on the last day of trial. The witness, the property manager at an apartment complex, would have testified that in return for rent concessions of $200 to $300 a month, Mr. Roldan did maintenance work in the complex. That testimony would have directly contradicted the testimony of both Mr. Roldan and his wife that he was totally disabled and unable to do any work in the apartment complex after this accident.
When a trial court exercises its discretion as to whether an unlisted witness should be allowed to testify, it should be guided in large part by whether there will be prejudice to the objecting party in the form of surprise. Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310, 1314 (Fla.1981). When allowing the witness to testify will not be unfair to the objecting party, the testimony should be permitted. Id.
In this case it is apparent from both the briefs and oral argument that the plaintiffs do not contend that Mr. Roldan was not doing the work or receiving a rent reduction. There would, accordingly, have been no prejudice in the sense of surprise, because plaintiffs do not dispute the truthfulness of the excluded evidence.
Defendant first argues that the trial court should have dismissed this case as a sanction for the plaintiffs perpetrating a fraud on the court. Although this might well have been a fraud, we are reluctant to impose the ultimate sanction of dismissal, because plaintiffs are apparently not fluent in English.
We agree, however, with defendant that a new trial is required. Plaintiffs’ claim for damages rested on the premise that Mr. Roldan was totally disabled and unable to work in any capacity as a result of this accident. After keeping out the testimony that the plaintiff was able to do some work, plaintiffs counsel, Hiram M. Monte-ro, argued to the jury:
I have an obligation to ... show you the magnitude of this man’s injuries ... This is a case about a disabled man, a man who worked before, who never asked for a penny, and who now is on disability because of his injuries, and I submit to you that it’s his brain injury and his seizures, as his wife said, that keep him from working, and a [disability] judge has determined that already ... It has already been determined that this man can’t work because of his brain injury and his seizures.
We reject plaintiffs’ arguments that this error did not affect the result. Although that is certainly a possibility, we will not affirm a verdict based on the charade which occurred in this case. We accordingly reverse for a new trial limited to the issue of damages.
DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.