RAYMOND L. VERMETTE, PETITIONER,
v.
SURF DRUGS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
In this discovery dispute in a negligence action, the Florida appellate court reviewed the trial judge's rulings on objections to written interrogatories. The court quashed some interrogatory requirements while sustaining others, finding certain inquiries improper under discovery rules.
The court quashed the order requiring response to interrogatory 23 about disability ratings; sustained objections to portions of interrogatories 27-31 and 35 requiring responses on behalf of the plaintiff's agent, attorney, or employee; upheld the trial court's requirement to respond to interrogatories 37-43 seeking witness identities; and upheld the trial court's sustaining of the objection to interrogatory 36.
“The order requiring the response to this interrogatory is quashed, pursuant to authority found in Lopez v. Wallack, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 327.”
The court's holding that interrogatory 23 about disability ratings was improper and should not have been required.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Vermette was injured and brought a negligence action against Surf Drugs, Inc. During discovery, the defendant propounded various written int…
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 Written Interrogatories cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an order in a negligence action wherein the trial judge overruled certain objections to written interrogatories. The respondent has cross-petitioned the trial judge’s order sustaining an objection to one interrogatory it had propounded.
The plaintiff was required to respond to interrogatory No. 23, which reads as follows:
“To your knowledge, or that of your attorney, did any doctor ever assign a disability rating to your wife, either on a temporary or permanent basis ? If so, state the percentage given and the name of the doctor giving same, whether such disability rating was temporary or permanent.”
The order requiring the response to this interrogatory is quashed, pursuant to authority found in Lopez v. Wallack, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 327.
In interrogatories numbered 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 35, wherein the objection was overruled, the ruling denying this objection is sustained as to the plaintiff but quashed as to that portion of the interrogatories that required the plaintiff to respond on behalf of his agent, attorney, servant, employee, etc., as to knowledge of certain facts and conclusions.
The remaining interrogatories, numbered 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43, response to which was required by the trial court, are similar in nature to number 37, which reads as follows:
“State the name and address of any witness who will testify to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.”
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge requiring the response to these interrogatories and, therefore, deny the relief sought by the petitioner in this connection. It is noted that the response to the interrogatories are not of a continuing nature [Rule 1.340(d), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A.], and the plaintiff is only required to respond to the best of his knowledge. Kennard v. State, 42 Fla. 581, 28 So. 858.
An examination of the cross-petition demonstrates no error in the trial court’s *873sustaining the objection to interrogatory number 36. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Allen, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 115; Boucher v. Pure Oil Company, Fla.App.1957, 101 So.2d 408; Lopez v. Wallack, supra; 10 Fla. Jur., Discovery, § 6.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the petition for certiorari to review the order on objections is granted in part and denied in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Boucher v. The Pure OIL Co., 101 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Kennard v. State, 42 Fla. 581 (Fla. 1900)
- Lopez v. Wallack, 197 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)