Nationwide Ins. Co., Pinellas County v. Monroe, 72--163
| Decision Date | 27 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--163,72--163 |
| Citation | 276 So.2d 547 |
| Parties | NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, PINELLAS COUNTY, Florida, et al., Petitioners, v. Leroy C. MONROE, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
W. Donald Cox and James E. Thompson, of Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey, Kinney & Boggs, Tampa, for petitioners.
William F. Blews, of Chambers & Blews, St. Petersburg, for respondent.
In this pending wrongful death action defendants-petitioners seek review by common law certiorari of a pretrial discovery order granting plaintiff-respondent several of the items requested in a motion to produce.
The death involved herein allegedly resulted from an accident between a Pinellas County Sheriff's car driven by petitioner Bragden (a deputy sheriff) and a car in which the deceased was riding. Immediately after the accident the sheriff's office began an investigation thereof; and respondent's motion to produce seeks discovery of the results of that investigation. Sought, among other things, are:
'1. Photographs of accident scene and vehicle identified in the deposition of Major Herman Vincent herein.
3. The sworn statements of witnesses taken on May 8, 1970, identified more specifically by Major Herman Vincent at his deposition herein.'
The trial judge denied some of the items requested in the motion to produce but ordered, '. . . that the defendants shall produce within ten days from the date of this order the photographs of the accident scene and vehicles and the list of witnesses for the justice of peace hearing and copies of the sworn statement of witnesses. . . .'
Petitioners argue that the order granting discovery departs from the essential requirements of law in that it requires production of petitioners' 'work product,' to their irreparable prejudice. We can agree that witnesses' statements and photographs are, ordinarily 'work product' 1 When obtained by a party, his attorney or his insurer in preparation of trial. 2 Here, however, it appears from petitioner's statement of the facts, and the sparse record before us, that the items granted by the order were not the product of work by petitioners or their attorneys in the preparation of this lawsuit, but rather that the items sought were the fruits of an investigation by the Pinnellas County Sheriff's office, an agency charged with the duty generally of investigating automobile accidents. 3 Such fruits are not transformed into 'work product' within the rule simply because a vehicle of that agency was involved in the accident investigated. In any case, public policy would seem clearly to militate against such transformation. Accordingly, we think, the 'work product' rule should not bar production of the photographs and witnesses' statements in a situation as that before us. 4
Petitioners not having shown a departure from the essential requirements of law, their petition for writ of certiorari must therefore be, and it hereby is, denied.
Certiorari denied.
1 See, Forgerty Brothers v. Perkins (Fla.App.1971), 250 So.2d 655. It must be kept in mind, though, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gibbs, 76--888
...236 So.2d 108 (Fla.1970); Travelers Indemnity Company v. Fields, 262 So.2d 222 (Fla.1st DCA 1972); Nationwide Insurance Co. Pinellas City v. Monroe, 276 So.2d 547 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); see in particular, Allstate Insurance Company v. Shupack, 335 So.2d 620 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Additionally, with......
-
Waste Management, Inc. of Florida v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co.
...436 So.2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) with Airocar, Inc. v. Goldman, 474 So.2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Nationwide Insurance Company, Pinellas County v. Monroe, 276 So.2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 283 So.2d 366 (Fla.1973). Here there were no findings by the trial court as to whether the ......
-
Anderson v. Mitchell
...a police officer for purposes of completing an accident report would be privileged and, thus, inadmissible."); Nationwide Ins. v. Monroe, 276 So.2d 547, 548 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (providing that statements given in compliance with section 316.066 are "immune from discovery").However, the s......
-
Dodson v. Persell, 78-449
...films does not present error. See Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, 61 So.2d 426 (Fla.1952); and Nationwide Insurance Company, Pinellas County v. Monroe, 276 So.2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Appellants' point claiming error upon the ground that a protective order, which prevented the taking......