Escoto v. Drehobl

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Escoto v. Drehobl

924 So. 2d 68, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 2224, 2006 WL 399436

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 22, 2006·No. No. 3D04-1520·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Pascual v. Dozier, 771 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1981)(trial court’s decision to exclude expert testimony based on improper disclosure “should be guided largely by a determination as to whether use of the undisclosed witness will prejudice the objecting party ... Prejudice in this sense refers to the surprise in fact of the objecting party ... .”)(internal citations omitted); Dos Santos v. Carlson, 806 So.2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(reversing and remand[69] ing for new trial based on improper exclusion of defendant’s radiology expert, where plaintiff knew about expert prior to trial and failed to establish unfair surprise).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Pascual v. Dozier, 771 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1981)(trial court’s decision to exclude expert testimony based on improper disclosure “should be guided largely by a determination as to whether use of the undisclosed witness will prejudice the objecting party ... Prejudice in this sense refers to the surprise in fact of the objecting party ... .”)(internal citations omitted); Dos Santos v. Carlson, 806 So.2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(reversing and remand[69] ing for new trial based on improper exclusion of defendant’s radiology expert, where plaintiff knew about expert prior to trial and failed to establish unfair surprise).

Escoto v. Drehobl, 924 So. 2d 68, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 2224, 2006 WL 399436 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

924 So. 2d 68 (Escoto v. Drehobl) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related