21st Century v. Smith
This text of 21st Century v. Smith (21st Century v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D16-3821
JACQUELINE SMITH,
Appellee. ________________________________/
Decision filed January 26, 2018
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Donald A. Myers, Jr., Judge.
Thomas E. Scott, Scott A. Cole and Alexandra Valdes, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.
Rebecca Bowen Creed and Bryan S. Gowdy, of Creed & Gowdy, P.A., Jacksonville, and Howard C. Coker, Joseph V. Camerlengo, Jr., and Stefano D. Portigliatti, of Coker, Schickel, Sorenson & Posgay, Camerlengo & Iracki, Jacksonville, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
COHEN, C.J., and WALLIS, J., concur. EVANDER, J., concurs specially, with opinion Case No. 5D16-3821
EVANDER, J., concurring specially.
Appellant is correct that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the testimony
of one of its expert witnesses. However, after consideration of the record before us, I
cannot conclude that the error was harmful. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Brago, 544 So. 2d
216, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“After reviewing the record, we conclude that the proffered
testimony—that there was a degeneration in Mrs. Kennedy’s condition after the
accident—was cumulative and therefore its exclusion was harmless.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
21st Century v. Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/21st-century-v-smith-fladistctapp-2018.