Porter v. Vista Bldg. Maintenance Services, Inc., 92-1914
Citation | 630 So.2d 205 |
Decision Date | 14 December 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 92-1914,92-1914 |
Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2648 Timothy PORTER, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. VISTA BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
David Stone, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Richard A. Sherman and Rosemary B. Wilder, Ft. Lauderdale; Alan L. Landsberg and Carol Riordan Seiderman, Hollywood, for appellee/cross-appellant.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and FERGUSON, JJ.
The denial of the plaintiff's pretrial motion for an order prohibiting the defendant from injecting evidence of the plaintiff's previous abuse of alcohol into the slip-and-fall trial was erroneous. Where, as here, it was undisputed that the plaintiff was sober at the time of the incident, the probative value of such evidence, if any, was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudicial effect. Sec. 90.403, Fla.Stat. (1991); Riggins v. Mariner Boat Works, Inc., 545 So.2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Locke v. Brown, 194 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).
The trial court's erroneous pretrial ruling admitting evidence of the plaintiff's alcoholism caused his attorney to mention it during opening argument, in an effort to diffuse its impact. On cross-examination of the plaintiff, defense counsel reminded the jury that Porter was an alcoholic who had "slipped and fallen off the wagon every year." Nonetheless, plaintiff's counsel's attempt to diminish the prejudicial impact of the damaging evidence did not, contrary to appellee's contentions, waive the error, or render the error harmless. A party cannot be penalized for his good-faith reliance on a trial court's incorrect ruling. See John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Zalay, 522 So.2d 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) ( ).
The amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff clearly reflects that the jury was influenced by the alcoholism-related evidence. See Ballard v. American Land Cruisers, Inc., 537 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (, )rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1989).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial on all issues.
I respectfully dissent upon the reasoning found in the following authorities....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weborg v. Jenny
...the potential prejudicial impact of the evidence that the circuit court ruled was admissible. Cf. Porter v. Vista Bldg. Maint. Servs., Inc., 630 So.2d 205, 206 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993) (“Plaintiff's counsel's attempt to diminish the prejudicial impact of the damaging evidence did not, contrar......
-
Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co.
...the parties' stipulation, to the jury. The Third District recognized and explained this principle in Porter v. Vista Building Maintenance Services, Inc., 630 So.2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). In Porter, the plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case filed a pre-trial motion in limine seeking to prohibit......
-
Edwards v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 97-2159
...against Edwards because of the irrelevant and inadmissable evidence that Orkin introduced. See Porter v. Vista Bldg. Maintenance Servs., Inc., 630 So.2d 205, 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), review denied, 640 So.2d 1109 (Fla.1994); Padrino v. Resnick, 615 So.2d 698, 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Ballard ......
-
Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co.
...Appeal's decisions in Smith v. Hooligan's Pub & Oyster Bar, Ltd., 753 So.2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), and Porter v. Vista Building Maintenance Services, 630 So.2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. BACKGROUND Petitioner Mary Ann Sheffield sustaine......