Freedman v. De La Cuesta, 3D04-1151.
| Decision Date | 22 March 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D04-1151.,No. 3D04-1637.,3D04-1151.,3D04-1637. |
| Citation | 929 So.2d 25 |
| Parties | Bruce Michael FREEDMAN and Delores Freedman, Appellant, v. Carlos DE LA CUESTA and Geico General Insurance Company, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lauri Waldman Ross, Miami; Julie A. Hager, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant.
Clark, Robb, Mason, Coulombe, Buschman & Cecere and James K. Clark; Adams & Adams, LLP, and Joel V. Lumer, and Richard B. Adams, Jr., Miami, for appellee.
Before GREEN, RAMIREZ, and SHEPHERD, JJ.
We affirm the final judgment entered against the plaintiffs in this personal injury, negligent driving case, finding no merit to either point raised on appeal. The record does not demonstrate any abuse of discretion in the trial court's admission of the expert's opinion and testimony. Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1981). The plaintiffs knew about the expert, and were aware that she would testify. Moreover, the testimony was based on information listed in the expert's report. There can be no claim that this testimony came as a surprise to plaintiffs. Binger; Melrose Nursery, Inc. v. Hunt, 443 So.2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). In view of the entire trial, we cannot conclude the court abused its discretion.
Additionally, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the new trial motion based on juror non-disclosure. Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So.2d 334, 340 (Fla. 2002); State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Levine, 875 So.2d 663, 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Here, there was no showing that the nondisclosure was "substantial and important" so that had the facts been known, plaintiffs would have exercised a peremptory challenge on the jurors. Roberts, 814 So.2d at 341.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bolling v. Jones
...that counsel would have exercised a peremptory challenge against the juror, had he known the information); Freedman v. De La Cuesta, 929 So.2d 25, 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion for new trial based on juror nondisclosure when there was no showing that the un......
-
Bolling v. State
...that counsel would have exercised 4 a peremptory challenge against the juror, had he known the information); Freedman v. De La Cuesta, 929 So.2d 25, 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion for new trial based on juror nondisclosure when there was no showing that the ......
-
Public Health Trust v. Metellus
...would have exercised a peremptory challenge against the juror had he been given the information in question. See Freedman v. De La Cuesta, 929 So.2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). FLETCHER, J., concurs. SHEPHERD, J., specially concurring. I concur in the judgment on the ground that the juror nondis......
-
Morgan v. Milton
...in selecting the jury. We review the trial court's decisionto deny a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Freedman v. De La Cuesta, 929 So.2d 25, 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). At first blush, the denial of a new trial here seems unfair to Ms. Morgan. She is correct that her right to inquire into......