NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
LEROY C. MONROE, 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.
Nationwide Insurance and other defendants sought certiorari review of a discovery order requiring production of accident investigation photographs and witness statements. The court held that materials obtained by a government agency investigating an accident are not protected as attorney work product merely because one of the agency's vehicles was involved in the accident.
The court held that photographs and witness statements are not protected as work product when they are the product of a government agency's investigation of an accident, even if one of that agency's vehicles was involved. The court affirmed the discovery order, finding that public policy militates against transforming such materials into work product merely because the investigating agency's vehicle was involved.
[1] Photographs of an accident scene and vehicles, and sworn statements of witnesses taken by an investigating agency, are not transformed into "work product" protected from…
[2] The "work product" doctrine does not bar production of photographs and witnesses' statements when those items are the fruits of an investigation by an agency charged with…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We can agree that witnesses' statements and photographs are, ordinarily 'work product' when obtained by a party, his attorney or his insurer in preparation of trial.”
Acknowledges the general work product doctrine but distinguishes cases where a government agency obtains the materials
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Pinellas County Sheriff's deputy driving a sheriff's car was involved in an accident with a vehicle in which the deceased was riding. The sheriff's …
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 Accident Report Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
In this pending wrongful death action defendants-petitioners seek review by common law certiorari of a pretrial discovery order granting plaintiff-respondent several of the items requested in a motion to produce.
The death involved herein allegedly resulted from an accident between a Pinellas *548County Sheriff’s car driven by petitioner Bragden (a deputy sheriff) and a car in which the deceased was riding. Immediately after the accident the sheriff’s office began an investigation thereof; and respondent’s motion to produce seeks discovery of the results of that investigation. Sought, among other things, are:
“1. Photographs of accident scene and vehicle identified in the deposition of Major Herman Vincent herein.
:K * * * * *
3. The sworn statements of witnesses taken on May 8, 1970, identified more specifically by Major Herman Vincent at his deposition herein.”
The trial judge denied some of the items requested in the motion to produce but ordered, “ . . . that the defendants shall produce within ten days from the date of this order the photographs of the accident scene and vehicles and the list of witnesses for the justice of peace hearing and copies of the sworn statement of witnesses. . . "
Petitioners argue that the order granting discovery departs from the essential requirements of law in that it requires production of petitioners’ “work product,” to their irreparable prejudice. We can agree that witnesses’ statements and photographs are, ordinarily “work product”1 when obtained by a party, his attorney or his insurer in preparation of trial. 2 Here, however, it appears from petitioner’s statement of the facts, and the sparse record before us, that the items granted by the order were not the product of work by petitioners or their attorneys in the preparation of this lawsuit, but rather that the items sought were the fruits of an investigation by the Pinnellas County Sheriff’s office, an agency charged with the duty generally of investigating automobile accidents.3 Such fruits are not transformed into “work product” within the rule simply because a vehicle of that agency was involved in the accident investigated. In any case, public policy would seem clearly to militate against such transformation. Accordingly, we think, the “work product” rule should not bar production of the photographs and witnesses’ statements in a situation as that before us.4
Petitioners not having shown a 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gibbs, 340 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…uch dis [*1204] covery. Brooks v. Owens, 97 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1957); Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla.1970); Travelers Indemnity Company v. Fields, 262 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Nationwide Insurance Co. Pinellas Cty. v. Monroe, 276 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); see in particular, Allstate Insurance Company v. Shupack, 335 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Additionally, with respect to the claim for punitive damages, it is clear from the face of the pleadings and from a reading of the appl…
-
Selected Risks Ins. Co. v. White, 447 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…people to report truthfully to police to aid their investigation without fear of penalty. Permitting discovery of the report would not further this purpose. This conclusion is bolstered by footnote four at 548 in Nationwide Insurance Co. v. Monroe, 276 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 283 So. 2d 366 (Fla.1973). Although the footnote is dictum, in it the court said that a statement given in compliance with the statute requiring the report is immune from discovery except as to its existence. ANSTEAD, C…
-
Waste Mgmt. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 544 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…ns, Inc. v. Murphy, 471 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); New Life Acres, Inc. v. Strickland, 436 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) with Airocar, Inc. v. Goldman, 474 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Nationwide Insurance Company, Pinellas County v. Monroe, 276 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 283 So. 2d 366 (Fla.1973). Here there were no findings by the trial court as to whether the material and statements sought were prepared, as petitioners contend, in anticipation of litigation, in which case the privile…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1947)
- Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)
- State v. Coffey, 212 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1968)
- Fogarty Bros. Transfer Co., Inc. v. Perkins, 250 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)