Daharan Well Texaco Oil Co. v. McFadden

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Daharan Well Texaco Oil Co. v. McFadden

717 So. 2d 162, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11668, 1998 WL 617611

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 16, 1998

DocketNo. 97-1540

StatusPublished

This text of 717 So. 2d 162 (Daharan Well Texaco Oil Co. v. McFadden) 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.

Bluebook

Daharan Well Texaco Oil Co. v. McFadden, 717 So. 2d 162, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11668, 1998 WL 617611 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the defendant in a slip and fall action, appeals a jury verdict in favor of the appellee, plaintiff in that action. We affirm.

[163]*163As its first, issue defendant claims that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence a photograph made from a video tape plaintiff made of the location shortly after his fall. Defendant argues that the photograph contained evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken after the fall and should have been excluded.

We disagree. At a minimum, the disputed photograph was properly admitted under the impeachment exception to the subsequent remedial measures rule. See Morowitz v. Vistaview Apartments, Ltd., 613 So.2d 493, 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); § 90.407, Fla. Stat. (1997). We need not consider plaintiffs other theories of admissibility. Assuming for present purposes that the photograph should not have been admitted during the plaintiffs ease in chief, under the circumstances of this case we conclude that the error was harmless.

We likewise find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination to enforce, and interpretation of, the parties’ pretrial agreement in which plaintiff agreed to drop certain claims and defendant agreed not to make reference to plaintiffs prior injuries. Even if any part of the ruling could be said to be erroneous, we do not see how defendant suffered any harm thereby.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the defendant in a slip and fall action, appeals a jury verdict in favor of the appellee, plaintiff in that action. We affirm.

[163]*163As its first, issue defendant claims that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence a photograph made from a video tape plaintiff made of the location shortly after his fall. Defendant argues that the photograph contained evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken after the fall and should have been excluded.

We disagree. At a minimum, the disputed photograph was properly admitted under the impeachment exception to the subsequent remedial measures rule. See Morowitz v. Vistaview Apartments, Ltd., 613 So.2d 493, 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); § 90.407, Fla. Stat. (1997). We need not consider plaintiffs other theories of admissibility. Assuming for present purposes that the photograph should not have been admitted during the plaintiffs ease in chief, under the circumstances of this case we conclude that the error was harmless.

We likewise find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination to enforce, and interpretation of, the parties’ pretrial agreement in which plaintiff agreed to drop certain claims and defendant agreed not to make reference to plaintiffs prior injuries. Even if any part of the ruling could be said to be erroneous, we do not see how defendant suffered any harm thereby.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

717 So. 2d 162, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11668, 1998 WL 617611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daharan-well-texaco-oil-co-v-mcfadden-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack