FOGARTY BROS. TRANSFER COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION, AND JAMES KILLINGSWORTH, JR., PETITIONERS,
v.
FRED B. PERKINS, 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.
Fogarty Bros. Transfer Company sought common law certiorari to quash a discovery order requiring production of accident reports filed with state and federal agencies. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that statutorily-required accident reports are privileged and immune from discovery, and that other accident reports are protected as attorney work product.
Accident reports required by Florida statute (F.S. § 350.45(1)) to be filed with the Florida Public Service Commission are privileged and not discoverable because the statute provides they are not competent evidence in any court. Other accident reports, whether for private use or filed with federal agencies, are protected under the work product doctrine and are not discoverable.
[1] Accident reports required by statute to be filed with a state commission are privileged and incompetent as evidence in court.
[2] Accident reports prepared by a common carrier for its own use or for filing with a federal agency are protected under the work product rule.
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“no such report shall be competent evidence in any court * * We construe this proviso as rendering privileged the required reports.”
Establishes that statutory prohibition on using required accident reports as evidence creates a privilege protecting them from discovery.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a pending automobile negligence action, plaintiff Perkins sought discovery of accident reports maintained by defendant Fogarty Bros., including rep…
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 Work Product Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
In this pending automobile negligence action the defendant Fogarty Bros, was ordered to produce and make available to plaintiff Perkins all accident reports required of its employees by Fogarty Bros, in its regular course of business and pertaining to the instant accident. Particularly, it was further ordered that Fogarty Bros, produce a copy of the accident report which it filed, as required, with the Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Fogarty Bros, now seeks common law certiorari to review the aforesaid order to produce. We issue the writ and quash the order.
In the first place, and apart from any “work product” rule, Fogarty Bros, as a common carrier in this state is required by F.S. § 350.45(1), F.S.A.1969, to make a report of all accidents and to file the same with the Florida Public Service Commission. That section further provides, however, that “ * * * no such report shall be competent evidence in any court * * We construe this proviso as rendering privileged the required reports. Analogously, they should be no less confidential than are the accident reports required of others by F.S. § 317.131, F.S.A. 1969,1 nor any more amenable to discovery. Accordingly, insofar as the order to produce reaches just such an accident report, it is clearly erroneous.
Now, insofar as the order reaches other accident reports, whether for the private use of Fogarty Bros, or to be filed with a federal agency, we think they are protected under the “work product” rule. Such reports are clearly within the purview of the decision of our supreme court in Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Timmons2 in which “work product” was *656held to include * * * (2) statements or reports from agents, officers or employees of the defendant company relating to the accident; and (3) records, investigation sheets, memoranda, and photographs, relating to the accident, including any and all information, investigation sheets, etc. * *
We conclude, therefore, that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law and that Fogarty Bros, is in jeopardy of irreparable prejudice. Accordingly, common law certiorari is appropriate, and the writ shall issue quashing the order here under review.
Certiorari granted.
LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Varsenig Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…in anticipation of litigation are work product of the party and its attorneys. Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1956); Florida Power & Light Company v. Lineburner, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Fogarty v. Brothers Transfer Company v. Perkins, 250 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2d DCA 1971); Grand Union v. Patrick, 247 So. 2d 474, 475 (Fla.3d DCA 1971); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Rule 1.280(b)(2), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that “only upon a showing that the party seeking dis…
-
Fed. Express Corp. v. Cantway, 778 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…rts were routed to departments other than the risk management department, such as the security department and the custodial supervisor, in order that remedial measure could be taken. 739 So. 2d at 107. See also Fogarty Bros. Transfer Co. v. Perkins, 250 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)(holding that accident reports which carrier required of its employees in regular course of business, whether for carrier’s private use or for filing with federal agency, as required, were protected from discovery under work produc…
-
Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Monroe, 276 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…departure from the essential requirements of law, their petition for writ of certiorari must therefore be, and it hereby is, denied. Certiorari denied. HOBSON, J„ and PIERCE, J., (Ret.), concur. . See, Fogerty Brothers v. Perkins (Fla.App.1971), 250 So. 2d 655. It must be kept in mind, though, that if these statements or photographs are to be presented as evidence they are not exempt from discovery. See, Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette (Fla.1970), 236 So. 2d 108. . The case in which the work product doctrin…
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
- Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1952)