Karch v. MacKay

453 So. 2d 452
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 11, 1984
Docket84-250
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 453 So. 2d 452 (Karch v. MacKay) 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
Karch v. MacKay, 453 So. 2d 452 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

453 So.2d 452 (1984)

Otto Julius KARCH and Florida Power & Light Company, a Florida Corporation, Petitioners,
v.
Darlene Marie MacKay and Joseph B. MacKay, Her Husband, Respondents.

No. 84-250.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 11, 1984.
Rehearing Denied August 21, 1984.

*453 Moss, Henderson & Lloyd, P.A., Vero Beach, and Marjorie Gadarian Graham of Jones & Foster, P.A., West Palm Beach, for petitioners.

Robert Sussman, and Edward A. Perse of Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Miami, for respondents.

DOWNEY, Judge.

By petition for writ of common law certiorari, Karch and Florida & Light Company seek quashal of discovery orders requiring the production of statements which Karch gave to his employer, Florida Power & Light, regarding Karch's involvement in an automobile accident. The respondent, Darlene Marie MacKay, is one of the persons injured in said accident and one of the plaintiffs in pending litigation arising therefrom.

The courts of this state have been consistent since Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), in holding that, absent very unusual circumstances, statements obtained by an employer regarding an accident in anticipation of litigation are work product and not subject to adversarial discovery. Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1970); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Limeburner, 390 So.2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The reports sought in this case appear to fall neatly within the protected category and allowance of their discovery constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. Accordingly, the petition for writ of common law certiorari is granted and those parts of the orders under review that require petitioners to produce statements that Karch gave to Florida Power & Light Company regarding the accident are quashed.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and BERANEK, J., concur.

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

Related

Honey Transport, Inc. v. Ruiz
893 So. 2d 661 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Federal Exp. Corp. v. Cantway
778 So. 2d 1052 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Palm Beach County School Board v. Morrison
614 So. 2d 693 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Waste Management, Inc. v. SOUTHERN BELL TEL. AND TEL. CO.
544 So. 2d 1133 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Dade County School Board v. Soler
534 So. 2d 884 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Airocar, Inc. v. Goldman
474 So. 2d 269 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gonyea
455 So. 2d 1342 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
453 So. 2d 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karch-v-mackay-fladistctapp-1984.