ROBERT THOMAS YANZITO, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS WAGNER, ETC., ET AL., 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.
The court held that it was not reversible error to refuse to allow plaintiffs to read a minor's deposition on redirect examination after the minor testified at trial.
Plaintiffs in a personal injury action sought to read the minor appellant's deposition into evidence on redirect examination after the minor had testi…
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 Redirect Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants, plaintiffs below, appeal from a judgment in an action for personal injuries entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the appellees-defendants.
At the trial, after the minor appellant had testified both in chief and on cross-examination, appellant’s counsel on redirect examination sought to read to the jury the appellant’s deposition taken eighteen months prior to the trial. Appellees’ objection was sustained, but the court received the entire deposition as a proffered evidentiary exhibit. Appellants now contend that it was reversible error for the trial judge to refuse to allow them to read the substance of the proffered deposition, since the statements therein more accurately expressed the recollections of the minor appellant.
With this contention we cannot agree. The minor appellant was examined directly and, upon cross-examination by appellees’ counsel, he adhered to the version of the accident given by him on direct examination. Any variance in his testimony given in a prior deposition was not properly the subject of redirect examination. If the minor’s memory needed to be refreshed, this should have been done by his counsel either before trial or during his initial direct examination. We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in refusing to allow appellants to read the substance of the minor’s deposition.
We have examined appellants’ remaining point on appeal and find it to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ„ concur.