Clements v. Boca Aviation, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Clements v. Boca Aviation, Inc.

444 So. 2d 597, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11647

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 8, 1984·No. No. 83-644·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We believe the trial court erred in excluding interrogatories and answers thereto as to the policy of Boca Aviation, Inc. to require certain minimum flying experience on the part of persons renting its aircraft. Reese v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, 360 So.2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. dismissed, 366 So.2d 884 (Fla.1978). Because there is evidence that this policy was violated and that the violation may have had some causal connection to the accident in question, we cannot conclude that the error was harmless. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and DOWNEY and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We believe the trial court erred in excluding interrogatories and answers thereto as to the policy of Boca Aviation, Inc. to require certain minimum flying experience on the part of persons renting its aircraft. Reese v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, 360 So.2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. dismissed, 366 So.2d 884 (Fla.1978). Because there is evidence that this policy was violated and that the violation may have had some causal connection to the accident in question, we cannot conclude that the error was harmless. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and DOWNEY and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

Clements v. Boca Aviation, Inc., 444 So. 2d 597, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11647 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

444 So. 2d 597 (Clements v. Boca Aviation, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related