SOL ATLAS, APPELLANT,
v.
HENRIEQUETA SISO AND LUIS SISO, A MINOR, 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.
Sol Atlas appealed a judgment entered against him in a negligence case involving a rear-end automobile collision. The trial court excluded testimony from an unlisted witness under a pre-trial order requiring disclosure of all witnesses five days before trial, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the exclusion was a proper exercise of discretion and the witness was not truly a rebuttal witness.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the undisclosed witness's testimony. The witness was not a true rebuttal witness because the plaintiff had already raised the issue of brake failure in his case-in-chief, so the defendant's evidence was not surprising or new matter requiring rebuttal.
“The rule is clear that a trial court may, in the proper exercise of its discretion, exclude testimony at trial of witnesses whose names are not disclosed, in accordance with orders at pre-trial conferences.”
Establishes the legal principle that trial courts have discretionary authority to enforce witness disclosure requirements from pre-trial orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSol Atlas was injured when Luis Siso, driving an automobile owned by Henriequeta Siso, collided with the rear of Atlas's stopped vehicle. The defendan…
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 Witness Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by Sol Atlas, the plaintiff below, from a final judgment entered for the defendants in a non-jury case.
The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was injured when the defendant, Luis Siso, ■drove the automobile owned by the defendant, Henriequeta Siso, into the rear of the plaintiffs automobile which was stopped for a traffic device, causing him injury and damages. The defendants’ answer denied negligence and alleged that the collision was caused by a sudden and unexpected failure ■of brakes “without warning.”
At the pre-trial conference, the trial court required each party to furnish in writing the names and addresses of any additional witnesses not listed at that time, to opposing counsel at least five days prior to trial. The court stated, “If the above is not complied with, the witnesses will not be allowed to testify at the time of trial.”
During the plaintiff’s case at trial there was testimony concerning the defective condition of the brakes. At the conclusion of the defendants’ case, the plaintiff called a witness whom he designated as a “rebuttal” witness. The defendants objected to his testimony on the ground that his name was not listed in accordance with the pre-trial order. The objection was sustained. The proffered testimony was to the effect that brakes cannot suddenly become defective without giving some notice to the operator.
The plaintiff was offered the opportunity to take a voluntary dismissal without prejudice if he deemed this testimony essential to his case, but he declined and elected to proceed without the testimony of the “rebuttal” witness. The plaintiff suffered an adverse judgment from the trial court, and on appeal has claimed reversible error in the denial of the “rebuttal” witness’ testimony.
The rule is clear that a trial court may, in the proper exercise of its discretion, exclude testimony at trial of witnesses whose names are not disclosed, in accordance with orders at pre-trial conferences. The trial court record failed to demonstrate that it was an abuse of the broad discretion and authority of the court for the proper conduct of the litigation to refuse to receive testimony of a witness for the plaintiff whose name was not included on the witness list filed by the plaintiff at the pre-trial conference. Henningsen v. Smith, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 85; Rose v. Yuille, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 318.
The plaintiff also contends that he is not required, by a pre-trial order, to list the names of “rebuttal” witnesses because he does not know.what evidence may be brought out by the defendant, and that such witnesses would only testify in opposition to any matters brought out by the defendants.
This argument has no merit in the instant cause, because the plaintiff brought out testimony concerning the failure of the brakes without prior warning during his case in chief. After the defendants’ expert mechanic had testified, the plaintiff attempted to present the testimony of the undisclosed “rebuttal” witness, and it is apparent that he was not a “rebuttal” witness to any new or surprise testimony brought out by the defendants. See Driscoll v. Morris, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 314.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and hold that there was no surprise requiring the testimony of an unnamed witness in rebuttal, inasmuch as the question of brake failure was an issue disclosed by the pleading, and no abuse of discretion has been shown which would constitute reversible error.
The judgment appealed from is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981)…rior to trial. See Williamson Truck Lines, Inc. v. Kellar, 301 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Yet another case suggests that a witness need not be disclosed if he will respond to any new or surprise testimony brought out at trial. See Atlas v. Siso, 188 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). The district court below identified each of these approaches and concluded that none “is adequate to furnish practical rules which can be used by the Bench and Bar to [*1313] resolve this thorny problem in the midst of a trial.”…
-
Zanoletti v. Norle Props., 688 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…example, the name of a witness was not disclosed pursuant to a pretrial order, see e.g. King Pest Control v. Binger, 379 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hartstone Concrete Products Co. v. Ivancevich, 200 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Atlas v. Siso, 188 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), but that did not occur in this case. Second, the testimony of an accident reconstruction expert was not essential to prove a prima facie case of liability under these circumstances. Third, Zanoletti did not present any expert tes…
-
A. A. Holiday Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Edwards, 190 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…r contradict plaintiff’s testimony to which it was directed. In the circumstances presented, the action of the trial judge in rejecting the witnesses was not an abuse of discretion. See cases cited in footnote No. 1, and Atlas v. Siso, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 344; Henningsen v. Smith, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 85; Rose v. Yuille, Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 318. The challenged charge relating to quotient verdict did not depart materially from the law on the point as set out in the early case of Orange Belt Ry. Co. v…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Driscoll v. Morris, 114 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Henningsen v. Smith, 174 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Rose v. Yuille, 88 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1956)