Dale v. Ford Motor Co., VV-204
| Decision Date | 09 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. VV-204,VV-204 |
| Citation | 409 So.2d 232 |
| Parties | Robert E. DALE, et ux, Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Brent M. Turbow and Arthur T. Boone, Jacksonville, for appellants.
Rutledge R. Liles of Howell, Howell, Liles, Braddock & Milton, Jacksonville, for appellee.
This appeal arose out of a products liability action brought by Robert E. Dale and Mary Dale, his wife, against Lynch-Davidson Motors, Inc. and Ford Motor Company. We are asked to consider whether the trial judge committed reversible error in permitting into evidence the testimony of Dr. Donald Wall, refusing to allow the appellants to introduce into evidence Ford's 1978 car shop manual and in awarding costs for copies of transcripts of depositions.
In the order setting the case for trial, the trial judge directed each attorney to serve upon opposing counsel, at least fifteen days prior to the trial, a list specifying the names and addresses of witnesses. Within the fifteen days prior to trial, the appellee verbally informed the appellants of its intention to use Dr. Donald Wall, an accident reconstructionist, and offered to produce him in Jacksonville for deposition. Appellants were thereafter served with a witness list which included the name of Donald Wall. Appellants filed a motion in limine to prohibit the appellee from offering testimony of any witnesses at trial and especially the testimony of Dr. Wall for the reason that the appellee's witness list was not served upon the appellants at least fifteen days prior to the trial. When appellee failed to timely answer interrogatories, appellants filed a motion for sanctions and a second motion in limine alleging that the appellee had violated the scope of the court's order granting appellants' motion for production, inspection, examination, and testing. Both motions were denied, and Dr. Wall was allowed to testify at trial regarding tests conducted with parts from appellants' automobile. Appellants urge that the court erred in denying said motions and in allowing Dr. Wall to testify over objection.
Counsel for both parties allege misconduct on the part of opposing counsel. While the trial may have proceeded under less than ideal conditions, the trial judge was blessed with firsthand knowledge of the situation and was in a position to determine whether the behavior of appellee's counsel was so egregious as to deny the appellants a fair trial or to warrant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nordyne, Inc. v. Florida Mobile Home Supply, Inc.
...trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling as it did regarding the testimony of those four witnesses. See Dale v. Ford Motor Co., 409 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (absent abuse of discretion, ruling regarding admissibility will not be PERMITTING EVIDENCE OF LOST FUTURE PROFITS Nord......
-
Whitehouse v. State, 82-474
...1402, 67 L.Ed.2d 371 (1981); Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606 (Fla.1978); Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959); Dale v. Ford Motor Co., 409 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville v. Dent, 404 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA), dismissed 411 So.2d 381 (Fla.198......
-
Young-Chin v. City of Homestead
...Jent v. State, 408 So.2d 1024 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1111, 102 S.Ct. 2916, 73 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1982); Dale v. Ford Motor Co., 409 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), limiting rebuttal which goes to the heart of the principal defense and which is not cumulative of evidence presented in p......
-
Moore v. State
...the child. No merit is found in the other points urged as error by the appellant. In Interest of C.M.H., supra; Dale v. Ford Motor Company, 409 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Section 59.041 Florida Statutes Therefore the matter is returned to the trial court for further proceedings consiste......