Laurent v. Uniroyal, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-3106,86-3106 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2679 Marie LAURENT, Appellant, v. UNIROYAL, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Friedman & Miller and Robert Miller, North Miami Beach, and Mark L. Siedle, Hollywood, for appellant.
Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane and Shelley H. Leinicke, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
In Marie Laurent's appeal from an adverse Final Judgment, she cites as error the trial court's refusal to permit the introduction of a rebuttal witness' testimony impeaching Uniroyal, Inc.'s expert witness and the trial court's exclusion of testimony as to what the vehicle owner would have done if Uniroyal had warned against mixing types of tires. We affirm.
First, we find no error in the trial court's exclusion of Laurent's rebuttal testimony which was cumulative in nature and should have been presented during Laurent's case-in-chief. See Thomas v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 424 So.2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Reeder v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 338 So.2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Driscoll v. Morris, 114 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959).
Second, we find no error because Laurent's accident expert testified that the failure to warn was a proximate cause of the accident, and since the proffered testimony was cumulative, its exclusion was harmless. See Thomas; Reeder. Furthermore, the record reflects that the cause of the accident was hotly disputed, that the jury considered many theories of the case, and that the issue of Uniroyal's failure to warn was properly before the jury. See Giddens v. Denman Rubber Mfg. Co., 440 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Finding no basis for reversal, see Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough, 355 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1978); Gonzalez v. Leon, 511 So.2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), we affirm.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorvil By and Through Dorvil v. Purolator Courier Corp., s. 89-1172
...because the doctor's testimony did not constitute proper rebuttal and was, in any event, cumulative. See Laurent v. Uniroyal, Inc., 515 So.2d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So.2d 879 (Fla.1988); Dale v. Ford Motor Co., 409 So.2d 232, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Driscoll v. Mor......
-
Mathias v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.
...1986, in accord with the jury's verdict, judgment was entered in Uniroyal's favor. That judgment was affirmed in Laurent v. Uniroyal, Inc., 515 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So.2d 879 (Fla.1988). After that decision, Mathias's case went to trial on a different theory; negl......
-
Sorondo v. BATET
...for the court to have excluded the proffer at trial. See Driscoll v. Morris, 114 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959); Laurent v. Uniroyal, Inc., 515 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So.2d 879 (Fla.1988); Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1981);. For these reasons, t......
-
Mathias v. Uniroyal, Inc., 89-392
...the passenger's case was tried and resulted in a verdict for the manufacturer, which was affirmed on appeal. See Laurent v. Uniroyal, Inc., 515 So.2d 1050 (Fla.App. 3d DCA 1987). The defendant then moved for and secured a summary judgment against the action brought on behalf of the deceased......