SALVAGE & SURPLUS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DAN WEINTRAUB, D/B/A DANART TRUCK BROKERAGE, 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.
Salvage & Surplus, Inc. appealed the exclusion of testimony from its sales manager regarding the value of lost paint cargo. The Florida appellate court affirmed that a corporate officer is not automatically qualified to testify about property value merely by virtue of holding office; the officer must be shown to have specific knowledge of the property and its value.
The court held that corporate ownership of property does not automatically qualify a corporate officer to testify as to its value. An officer must be shown to have sufficient knowledge regarding the property and its value in order to qualify to give such testimony.
“But the holding of an office in a corporation owning property will not of itself place the officer in the position of having that knowledge of the character and uses of the property as in the case of an individual owner.”
Establishes that corporate officers lack the automatic qualification that individual owners have to testify about property value.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSalvage & Surplus filed suit against a common carrier for the value of paint lost in transit. At trial, the plaintiff attempted to establish the value…
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 Admissibility Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, the plaintiff below, filed an action in the civil court of record in Dade County, against a common carrier for the value of a portion of a shipment of paint which was lost in transit. On trial before a jury, the plaintiff sought to prove the value of the property involved through its sales manager. He was not shown to have knowledge of the value, nor to be qualified as an expert. The court sustained an objection to his testimony. Plaintiff then took a nonsuit, and appealed under § 59.05, Fla. Stat., F.S.A.
The question for determination is whether the trial judge was in error in ruling out the testimony of the sales manager as to the value of the goods. Appellant contends the evidence was admissible under the rule which permits an owner of property to testify as to its value though not qualified as an expert. That rule as applied to an individual owner of property is based upon his presumed familiarity with the characteristics of the property, knowledge or acquaintance with its uses and purposes, and experience in dealing with it. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Sandlin, 75 Fla. 539, 78 So. 667, 668; 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, § 892. But the holding of an office in a corporation owning property will not of itself place the officer in the position of having that knowledge of the character and uses of the property as in the case of an individual owner.
Accordingly, ownership of property by a corporation does not automatically qualify an officer of the corporation to testify as to its value. The officer must be shown to have knowledge regarding the property and its value sufficient to qualify him. Appeal of Dubuque-Wisconsin Bridge Co., 237 Iowa 1314, 25 N.W.2d 327, 330; In re Re-Bo Mfg. Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1950, 90 F.Supp. 388; Winthrop Products Corp. v. Elroth Co., 331 Mass. 83, 117 N.E.2d 157, 159; Annotation, 37 A.L.R.2d 967, 971 (1954); 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, § 893. No such showing was made or attempted to be made in this case. Being unprepared to prove the value by other means, the plaintiff elected to take a nonsuit. The questioned ruling of the trial judge was eminently correct.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Liggett Grp. Inc. v. Howard A. Engle, M.D., 853 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…oduction of the defendants' audited financial statements. See Rety v. Green, 546 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (president's testimony plus audited financial statements admissible as evidence of financial worth); Salvage & Surplus, Inc. v. Weintraub, 131 So. 2d 515, 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) (knowledgeable corporate officer can testify as to value); see also Witchell v. Londono, 707 So. 2d 796, 799 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (corporate officer with knowledge of relevant values is qualified to testify); Mercury Mari…
-
Taylor v. State, 425 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…of his property. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Sandlin, 75 Fla. 539, 78 So. 667, 668 (1918). Of course, mere ownership of property does not automatically qualify an owner to testify as to his property’s value. Salvage & Surplus, Inc. v. Weintraub, 131 So. 2d 515, 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); 5 Ehrhardt, Florida Practice § 701.1 at 212 (1977). The witness must be shown to have personal knowledge of the property. Cf. Salvage & Surplus. Therefore, one’s competency to testify as to the value of stolen property is no…
-
John E. Hill and his wife v. Marion Cnty., 238 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…least $10,000 on account of the taking. Her opinion testimony was admissible under the rule established in Florida that an owner of property may testify as to its value, although not qualified as an expert. See Salvage & Surplus, Inc. v. Weintraub, 131 So. 2d 515 (Fla.App.1961). Our basic views in the present appeal were well expressed by the Supreme Court of Florida in Jacksonville Expressway Authority v. Henry G. Du Pree Co., 108 So. 2d 289 (1958), as follows: “We feel our constitutional provision for fu…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Sandlin, 75 Fla. 539 (Fla. 1918)