Staton v. Allied Chain Link Fence Co.
| Decision Date | 18 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-2155,81-2155 |
| Citation | 418 So.2d 404 |
| Parties | Steve STATON and West American Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. ALLIED CHAIN LINK FENCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Donald V. Bulleit of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P. A., St. Petersburg, for petitioners.
David J. Kadyk, Ted R. Manry, III, and Timothy S. Condon of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for respondent.
By certiorari, the petitioners seek review of an order compelling discovery. We find that the statements sought to be discovered are protected by the attorney-client privilege; therefore, we quash the order compelling discovery.
Kimberly Clark, plaintiff below, filed an action for damages for personal injuries sustained when she fell into a chain link fence. Petitioners and respondent herein are defendants below; Steve Staton owns the property upon which the fence is located, West American Insurance Company is Staton's insurer, and Allied Chain Link Fence installed the fence some twelve years ago. Staton and Allied have cross-claimed against each other seeking indemnity or contribution.
A major question in the case is whether Staton or Allied caused the fence to be installed with barbs in an upward position. The files and records of Allied dealing with the Staton installation had been destroyed in the normal course of business. Either the employees of Allied who took the Staton order and made the installation could not be identified, or the instruction of Staton with regard to the specification, if any, of barb direction could not be recalled independent of the records. Staton testified under oath that he never discussed the positioning of the barbs with Allied, but Allied challenged the truthfulness of this statement and moved to compel discovery of communications between Staton and a representative of West American limited to conversations Staton had with Allied when the fence was installed. Allied argues that the statements sought to be discovered are not within the ambit of the attorney-client privilege, being only protected by the work product doctrine. This doctrine protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Allied further asserts that the statements fall within the impeachment exception to the work product doctrine. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947); Miami Transit Co. v. Hurns, 46 So.2d 390 (Fla.1950).
Allied's arguments are not persuasive. The record reveals that the communications were made by Staton to his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schipp v. General Motors Corp.
...such, the communication falls within the attorney-client relationship and is therefore privileged."); Staton v. Allied Chain Link Fence Co., 418 So.2d 404, 405-06 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982); Pietro v. Marriott Senior Living Servs. Inc., 348 Ill.App.3d 541, 284 Ill.Dec. 564, 810 N.E.2d 217, 226 ......
-
Reynolds v. State
...the insured. 85 So.2d at 138. Vann did not state that it involved an examination under oath, and neither did Staton v. Allied Chain Link Fence Co., 418 So.2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), the other case that Reynolds relies upon in her petition. However, these cases stand for the general proposit......
- Prince v. State, 81-1777