Bird v. Hardrives of Delray, Inc., 93-0005
| Decision Date | 17 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-0005,93-0005 |
| Citation | 644 So.2d 89 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D1744 Edwin BIRD, Judith Bird, and Sarah Lee Bird, a minor, Appellants, v. HARDRIVES OF DELRAY, INC., and Constantino Gonzalez, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lynn G. Waxman of Lynn G. Waxman, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Ronald N. Dubner, Boca Raton, for appellants.
Joseph S. Kashi of Sperry, Shapiro & Kashi, P.A., and David F. Cooney of Cooney, Haliczer, Mattson, Lance, Blackburn, Pettis & Richards, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
We reverse a final judgment for Defendants entered after the trial court, midway through Plaintiffs' case, announced, sua sponte, that the court was striking the complaint and dismissing the action.
The court, upon concluding that Edward Bird was committing perjury, 1 and perpetrating a "sham, a fraud, and outright criminal conduct," summarily terminated the case while Bird was on the stand. At that point, the court and jury had seen a surveillance tape reflecting Edwin Bird's physical condition in impeaching juxtaposition to his own "day in the life" video. At the same time, the court believed that Bird's testimony, attempting to explain that he had not seen a doctor recently because the trial "was brought on suddenly," was directly contrary to the court's own recollection of the court's setting the trial date to accommodate Plaintiffs.
The court, at the time of its ruling, also was cognizant of its pretrial decision on a motion in limine, that sought sanctions due to the unexplained disappearance of an MRI that was last in Edwin Bird's possession. In ruling on that motion, the court had decided not to impose sanctions for the discovery violation, but to remedy the problem by a special jury instruction as to the missing evidence. In announcing its midtrial decision to strike the complaint and dismiss, the court also commented "that Mr. Bird most likely did dispose of this key piece of evidence"; but that was not the stated basis for the dismissal.
Several months after the court's announcement of dismissal, the defense filed a written motion for sanctions, together with affidavits and portions of depositions concerning the missing MRI. This motion also sought attorney's fees and a written judgment for the defendants. After a nonevidentiary hearing, the court entered a final judgment, finding that Plaintiffs willfully destroyed MRI films in order to conceal their fraudulent claims, and that Defendants could not proceed without that vital evidence.
The record reflects that the court's explanation for its decision to dismiss shifted from the suspected fraud and perjury announced during the trial, to Plaintiffs' failure to produce the MRI, alone emphasized in the written order. The record also reflects that the court's written decision was based on additional material presented months after the court's sua sponte pronouncement at trial terminating the case.
It was error to summarily strike the plaintiff's pleadings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 4D98-3573.
...507 So.2d 596 (Fla.1987)(unexplained disappearance of an operative report in a medical malpractice case), and Bird v. Hardrives of Delray, Inc., 644 So.2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(willful destruction of an MRI film in a personal injury Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprov......
-
Amlan, Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., s. 92-2041
...disappearance of evidence. See, e.g., Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Valcin, 507 So.2d 596 (Fla.1987); Bird v. Hardrives of Delray, Inc., 644 So.2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994.) The discovery abuses alleged to have been committed by Detroit Diesel in this case are not of the type which hav......
-
Arzuman v. Saud
...most severe of all possible sanctions, however, it should be employed only in extreme circumstances. Id.; Bird v. Hardrives of Delray, Inc., 644 So.2d 89, 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In the cases cited by appellees, in which the ultimate sanction has been upheld, claimants were attempting to co......
-
Bertrand v. BELHOMME
...employed only in extreme circumstances. See Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So.2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Bird v. Hardrives of Delray, Inc., 644 So.2d 89, 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). An appellate court reviews a trial court's imposition of sanctions under an abuse of discretion standard of rev......
-
A serious penalty for perjury.
...(Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1981). [15] Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983). [16] Miele, 407 So. 2d 292; Bird v. Hardrives of Delray, Inc., 644 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. [17] Yohanan v. deClaire, 421 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1982), quashed on other grounds sub nom. DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 ......