FURMAN'S INC., D/B/A BURGER KING (STORE 4893), PETITIONER,
v.
DONALD A. CAMERON, RESPONDENT
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.
Furman's Inc. successfully petitioned for certiorari to quash a discovery order requiring disclosure of witness statements protected by work-product privilege in a slip-and-fall case.
Statements made by employees to an insurance company regarding an accident are protected work product and not discoverable.
[1] Statements made by employees or agents to an insurance company regarding an alleged accident are protected work product and not subject to discovery in civil litigation.
Previewing 1 of 1 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 statements of any other witness(es) who have or may have claimed knowledge of the incident.”
Cameron's second item in his request for production of documents.
Furman's Inc., operating a Burger King, was sued by Donald Cameron in a slip-and-fall case. Cameron sought production of statements from any witnesses…
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 Slip And Fall Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Chief Judge.
Furman’s Inc., d/b/a Burger King (Store 4893), is the defendant below in a slip-and-fall case brought by Donald A. Cameron. Furman’s Inc. petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to quash an order that authorized discovery by overruling its work-product privilege to the second item in Cameron’s request for production. We grant the petition.
In the second item in his request for production, Cameron sought “[t]he statements) of any other witness(es) who have or may have claimed knowledge of the incident.” Furman’s Inc. objected on the basis of work-produet privilege and provided the name of an employee who made a statement to its insurance company approximately two weeks after Cameron’s accident. In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Weeks, 696 So. 2d 855, 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), this court quashed an order compelling Wal-Mart to furnish “the substance of statements taken or given by its employees, agents, or attorneys regarding the alleged accident” because such statements are nondiscoverable work product. Based on Weeks, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash that portion of the order overruling the work-product privilege to the second item in Cameron’s request for production.
Petition granted.
WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., concur.