Delisle v. Crane Co.
Decision Date | 15 October 2018 |
Docket Number | No. SC16-2182,SC16-2182 |
Citation | 258 So.3d 1219 |
Parties | Richard DELISLE, Petitioner, v. CRANE CO., et al., Respondents. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James L. Ferraro, David A. Jagolinzer, and Paulo R. Lima of The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A., Miami, Florida, for Petitioner
Elliot H. Scherker, Julissa Rodriguez, Brigid F. Cech Samole, Sabrina F. Gallo, and Stephanie L. Varela of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, Florida, for Respondent R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, as successor-by merger to Lorillard Tobacco Company, and Hollingsworth & Vose Company
Paul F. Hancock and William J. Simonitsch of K & L Gates, LLP, Miami, Florida; and Richard E. Doran of Ausley McMullen, Tallahassee, Florida, for Respondent Crane Co.
Bryan S. Gowdy of Creed & Gowdy, P.A., Jacksonville, Florida; and Howard C. Coker of Coker, Schickel, Sorenson, Posgay, Camerlongo & Iracki, Jacksonville, Florida, for Amicus Curiae Counsel for Florida Justice Association
Kansas R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Jacksonville, Florida, for Amicus Curiae Florida Defense Lawyers Association
Wesley A. Bowden of Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A., Pensacola, Florida, for Amicus Curiae Concerned Physicians, Scientists and Scholars Regarding Causation of Asbestos-Related Disease
Cory L. Andrews of Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, District of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae Washington Legal Foundation
Martin S. Kaufman of Atlantic Legal Foundation, Harrison, New York; and Joseph H. Varner, III of Holland & Knight, LLP, Tampa, Florida, for Amici Curiae John Henderson Duffus, Ph.D., Ronald E. Gots, M.D., Dr. A. Alan Moghissi, Professor Robert Nolan, Gordon L. Nord, Ph.D., and Professor Emanuel Rubin
Andy Bardos and George N. Meros, Jr., of GrayRobinson, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida; and William W. Large of Florida Justice Reform Institute, Tallahassee, Florida, for Amicus Curiae Florida Justice Reform Institute
William N. Shepherd, Jason D. Lazarus, and Tiffany Roddenberry of Holland & Knight, LLP, West Palm Beach, Florida; and H. Eugene Lindsey III, Miami, Florida, for Amicus Curiae The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General, Edward M. Wenger, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, and Jordan E. Pratt, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Amicus Curiae State of Florida
Richard DeLisle seeks review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Crane Co. v. DeLisle , 206 So.3d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of this Court on a question of law.1 We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
The facts of this case were described in the Fourth District's opinion as follows:
. Dr. Rasmuson, an industrial hygienist, relied on Dr. Longo's testing to opine on DeLisle's exposure. Following Daubert hearings, the trial court admitted each expert's testimony.
Before the jury, Dr. Dahlgren opined that "every exposure" above background levels to friable, inhaled asbestos—regardless of product, fiber type, and dose—would be considered a substantial contributing factor to DeLisle's mesothelioma. In contrast, Dr. Rasmuson testified that low-level exposures to chrysotile asbestos would not increase the risk of mesothelioma. Dr. Crapo testified similarly to Dr. Rasmuson as to low-level chrysotile asbestos.
Crane Co. v. DeLisle , 206 So.3d 94, 98-100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (footnotes omitted). Crane appealed the trial court's denial of its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the trial court's admission of expert causation testimony among other issues. Id. at 100. R.J. Reynolds also appealed the admission of expert testimony and both parties appealed the award as excessive. Id.
The Fourth District reviewed the admission of the testimony of the experts under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and found that the trial court "failed to properly exercise its gatekeeping function as to Drs. Dahlgren, Crapo, and Rasmuson." Id. The Fourth District reversed for a new trial for R. J. Reynolds and reversed and remanded for entry of a directed verdict for Crane. Id. at 111-12. DeLisle sought review by this Court, which was granted.
The Florida Legislature and the Florida Supreme Court have worked in tandem for nearly forty years to enact and maintain codified rules of evidence. This arrangement between the branches to avoid constitutional questions of separation of powers continued uninterrupted from the Evidence Code's inception until 2000. In the instant case, we are asked to determine whether chapter 2013-107, section 1, Laws of Florida, which revised section 90.702, Florida Statutes (2015), and which we previously declined to adopt, to the extent it was procedural, infringes on this Court's rulemaking authority. We find that it does. Therefore, we reverse the Fourth District and remand for reinstatement of the final judgment.
The Florida Legislature enacted the first codified rules of evidence in 1976. Ch. 76-237, at 556, Laws of Florida. In 1979, we adopted the Florida Evidence Code, to the extent that the code was procedural. See In re Fla. Evidence Code , 372 So.2d 1369 (Fla.), clarified , In re Fla. Evidence Code , 376 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 1979). We recognized that Id. at 1369...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Amendments to the Fla. Evidence Code
...and commenters who opposed the amendments. Without now readdressing the correctness of this Court's ruling in DeLisle v. Crane Co. , 258 So.3d 1219, 1221, 1229 (Fla. 2018), we note that the decision determined that section 90.702 of the Florida Evidence Code, as amended by section 1 of chap......
-
Dean Wish, LLC v. Lee Cnty.
...it is only logical that a statutory amendment can clarify one component while also making substantive changes. See DeLisle v. Crane Co. , 258 So. 3d 1219, 1228 (Fla. 2018) ("[A] statute can have both substantive provisions and procedural requirements." (citing Jackson v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.......
-
Dean Wish, LLC v. Lee Cnty.
...... can clarify one component while also making substantive. changes. See DeLisle v. Crane Co. , 258 So.3d 1219,. 1228 (Fla. 2018) ("[A] statute can have both substantive. provisions and procedural requirements." ......
-
D Foley v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...... These are issues, however, for resolution in the supreme. court in its prospective rule-making capacity.”). See also DeLisle v. Crane Co. , 258 So.3d 1219, 1224. (Fla. 2018) (“Generally, the Legislature has the power. to enact substantive law while [the state ......
-
Dui defense
...Constitution which provides that court rules are the exclusive responsibility of the Florida Supreme Court. [ Delisle v. Crane Co. , 258 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2018).] Nevertheless, less than one year later, the Florida Supreme Court reversed itself. On May 23, 2019, the Florida Supreme Court up......
-
Civil litigation
...application of Daubert as encroaching upon its procedural rule-making authority and invalidated them. [See Delisle v. Crane Co. , 258 So. 3d 1219, 1225-30 (Fla. 2018) (reaffirming the application of Frye v. United States , and finding legislative changes to Florida Evidence Code, i.e., §§90......
-
Florida's New Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act: A Roadmap for Judges and Practitioners.
...the Uniform Commercial Code. (4) FLA. STAT. [section]714.28. (5) Gordon v. State, 608 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1992). (6) DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219, 1224 (Fla. (7) Remedial statutes are construed liberally. Golf Channel v. Jenkins, 752 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2000). While retroactivity with re......