TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Davis v. Pfund

Davis v. Pfund, 479 So. 2d 230 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 3, 1985
Docket
No. 85-810
Judges
Schwartz, C.J., and Baskin and Jorgenson
Citations
479 So. 2d 23010 Fla. L. Weekly 2661
Cited by 7

Opinion

479 So.2d 230 (1985)

Edwina H. DAVIS and Jeff V. Davis, Appellants,

v.

Gene H. PFUND, Irma Pfund, and the Insurance Company of North America, a Foreign Corporation, Appellees.

No. 85-810.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 3, 1985. Rehearing Denied December 30, 1985.

*231 Fred Butner, Key West, James C. Blecke, Miami, for appellants.

Papy, Poole, Weissenborn & Papy and John G. Poole, Jr., Coral Gables, for appellees.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the plaintiffs/appellants that it was error for the trial court to have excluded the plaintiffs' witness, James Elwood, from testifying. The trial court's stated reason for not permitting the testimony was that, following the pretrial conference and the closure of discovery, Mr. Elwood had returned to the scene of the accident and taken certain measurements in order to clarify his original drawings. The trial court concluded that Elwood's activity was in violation of its order closing discovery. Appellees have not offered, nor has our independent research disclosed, any authority for the proposition that an expert cannot continue to prepare materials (in this case, the drawings) or examine objects (in this case, an allegedly defective staircase) about which he is to testify. It was error, therefore, for the trial court to have prohibited Elwood from testifying on the ground that Elwood's activity constituted a violation of the court's discovery order. Cf. Dandashi v. Fine, 397 So.2d 442, 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (no authority in Florida for exclusion of testimony of expert witness where expert, without knowledge of counsel, discusses case with opposing party, who is also an expert). Exclusion of a witness's testimony "is a drastic remedy which should be invoked only under the most compelling circumstances." LoBue v. Travelers Insurance Co., 388 So.2d 1349, 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Because the trial court prevented a proffer of Elwood's testimony, we cannot determine the effect of this exclusion. We must presume that the exclusion was prejudicial, and, therefore, we reverse. See Musachia v. Terry, 140 So.2d 605, 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). In view of our reversal on this point, we do not consider the other issue raised.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1986: 11990: 11992: 11996: 12000: 12001: 12014: 119862026peak 1986 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kellner v. David140 So. 3d 1042 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)
  2. Tetrault v. Fairchild799 So. 2d 226 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
  3. Pascual v. Dozier771 So. 2d 552 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
  4. Thunderbird Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. REED ex rel. REED571 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
  5. State v. Kruelski677 A.2d 951 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996) · Dissent
  6. South End Improvement Group, Inc. ex rel. Bank of New York v. Mulliken602 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Most recent

  1. Kellner v. David140 So. 3d 1042 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)
  2. Tetrault v. Fairchild799 So. 2d 226 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
  3. Pascual v. Dozier771 So. 2d 552 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
  4. State v. Kruelski677 A.2d 951 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996) · Dissent
  5. South End Improvement Group, Inc. ex rel. Bank of New York v. Mulliken602 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
  6. Thunderbird Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. REED ex rel. REED571 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
LoBue v. Travelers Ins. Co., 388 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) 29
Musachia v. Terry, 140 So. 2d 605 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962) 23
Dandashi v. Fine, 397 So. 2d 442 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981) 23

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list