Atlas v. Siso, 65--839
| Decision Date | 28 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 65--839,65--839 |
| Parties | Sol ATLAS, Appellant, v. Henriequeta SISO and Luis Siso, a minor, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Fuller & Brumer, Miami, for appellant.
Hagglund & Larson, Sam Daniels, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
This is an appeal by Sol Atlas, the plaintiff below, from a final judgment entered for the defendants in a non-jury case.
The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was injured when the defendant, Luis Siso, drove the automobile owned by the defendant, Henriequeta Siso, into the rear of the plaintiff's automobile which was stopped for a traffic device, causing him injury and damages. The defendants' answer denied negligence and alleged that the collision was caused by a sudden and unexpected failure of brakes 'without warning.'
At the pre-trial conference, the trial court required each party to furnish in writing the names and addresses of any additional witnesses not listed at that time, to opposing counsel at least five days prior to trial. The court stated, 'If the above is not complied with, the witnesses will not be allowed to testify at the time of trial.'
During the plaintiff's case at trial there was testimony concerning the defective condition of the brakes. At the conclusion of the defendants' case, the plaintiff called a witness whom he designated as a 'rebuttal' witness. The defendants objected to his testimony on the ground that his name was not listed in accordance with the pre-trial order. The objection was sustained. The proffered testimony was to the effect that brakes cannot suddenly become defective without giving some notice to the operator.
The plaintiff was offered the opportunity to take a voluntary dismissal without prejudice if he deemed this testimony essential to his case, but he declined and elected to proceed without the testimony of the 'rebuttal' witness. The plaintiff suffered an adverse judgment from the trial court, and on appeal has claimed reversible error in the denial of the 'rebuttal' witness' testimony.
The rule is clear that a trial court may, in the proper exercise of its discretion, exclude testimony at trial of witnesses whose names are not disclosed, in accordance with orders at pre-trial conferences. The trial court record failed to demonstrate that it was an abuse of the broad discretion and authority of the court for the proper conduct of the litigation to refuse to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Binger v. King Pest Control
...that a witness need not be disclosed if he will respond to any new or surprise testimony brought out at trial. See Atlas v. Siso, 188 So.2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). The district court below identified each of these approaches and concluded that none "is adequate to furnish practical rules wh......
-
King Pest Control v. Binger
...So.2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); County of Brevard v. Interstate Engineering Company, 224 So.2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Atlas v. Siso, 188 So.2d 344 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1966). Should either party offer an unlisted witness, objection by the opposition requires the trial judge to determine whether th......
-
Shelley Manufacturing Company v. Byrd, 72--932
...Inc. v. Thomas, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 551; Stager v. Florida East Coast Railway Company, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 15; Atlas v. Siso, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 344; Young v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 594; Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. King, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 294;......
-
A. A. Holiday Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Edwards, RENT-A-CA
...action of the trial judge in rejecting the witnesses was not an abuse of discretion. See cases cited in footnote No. 1, and Atlas v. Siso, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 344; Henningsen v. Smith, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 85; Rose v. Yuille, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d The challenged charge relating to quoti......