GARY BOHACK, APPELLANT,
v.
KELLER INDUSTRIES, INC., 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.
Bohack sued Keller Industries for products liability and negligence over a defective ladder. The trial court's in limine order strictly prohibited Bohack from referencing other ladder manufacturers, but Keller's own expert violated this order. The appellate court reversed the products liability judgment, finding the trial court abused its discretion by preventing Bohack from cross-examining Keller's expert on the very topic Keller had opened through its own witness.
The trial court abused its discretion by precluding Bohack from cross-examining Keller's expert on other ladder manufacturers after Keller's expert had opened the door by violating the in limine order. The products liability judgment was reversed because the trial court should have allowed cross-examination to cure the damage caused by the expert's testimony.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by strictly enforcing a pretrial order in limine when the opposing party's expert has already violated that order, thereby opening the…
[2] In a defective design products liability case, evidence pertaining to the state of the art of scientific and technical knowledge and other circumstances that existed at t…
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“Once Keller's expert had violated the order in limine secured by Keller, the trial court abused its discretion by precluding Bohaek from cross-examining the expert on that issue.”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court violated its discretion by preventing cross-examination after Keller's witness opened the door.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBohack sued Keller Industries for manufacturing a defective ladder. Before trial, the court granted Keller's motion in limine to preclude any referenc…
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
[*1114] PER CURIAM.
In the circuit court, appellant Gary Bo-hack sued appellee, Keller Industries, Inc., on claims of products liability and negligence. The product at issue was a ladder manufactured by Keller. Before trial, Keller moved in limine to preclude Bohaek from making any reference whatsoever to other ladder manufacturers. Bohack’s attorney agreed to the entry of an order granting the motion, apparently unaware of its full scope. At trial, the order prevented Bohaek from presenting evidence that would have been admissible under section 768.1257, Florida Statutes (2003), which, in a defective design case, allows evidence pertaining to “the state of the art of scientific and technical knowledge and other circumstances that existed at the time of manufacture.” In spite of Bohack’s efforts to relax the order in limine, Keller succeeded at trial in having the court strictly enforce the wording of the pretrial order, which had been entered by a different judge.
At trial, Keller’s expert violated the order in limine by testifying that “every other major manufacturer has made at least one ladder of this type at some point in time.” The trial court denied Bohack’s request to cross-examine the expert on whether other manufacturers had designed ladders similar to the one at issue. The court also denied the request for a mistrial.
Once Keller’s expert violated the order in limine, the only effective way to cure the damage was by allowing Keller to cross-examine the expert. The testimony opened the door to cross-examination on the expert’s representation concerning other ladder manufacturers. Once Keller’s expert had violated the order in limine secured by Keller, the trial court abused its discretion by precluding Bohaek from cross-examining the expert on that issue.
We therefore reverse the final judgment on the products liability count. We affirm the verdict for Keller on the negligence count, finding that the error described was harmless, as it pertained to the negligence issue.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
WARNER, GROSS, JJ„ and SILVERMAN, SCOTT, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crawford v. ITW Food Equip. Grp., LLC, 977 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2020)…s. Because FEG's requested instruction dealt with an issue that was properly before negligence claims because the statute, by its express terms, only applied in product defect cases. Id. at 1010. Plaintiffs' also cite Bohack v. Keller Indus., Inc., 895 So.2d 1113, 1114 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005), but Bohack simply did not address the applicability of § 768.1257 to a claim for negligent design. [fn 14]: Indeed, some courts have held that state-of-the-art evidence is inadmissible in strict liability because it…