Kennedy v. Brago

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kennedy v. Brago

544 So. 2d 216, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 681, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1288, 1989 WL 21420

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 14, 1989

DocketNo. 87-2724

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 544 So. 2d 216 (Kennedy v. Brago) 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

Kennedy v. Brago, 544 So. 2d 216, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 681, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1288, 1989 WL 21420 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A judgment was entered on a jury verdict fixing the plaintiffs’ damages at $26,-000 as a result of an automobile collision which aggravated Mrs. Kennedy’s pre-ex-isting injuries. The Kennedys’ single contention on appeal is that the trial court’s exclusion of one of their medical experts constitutes reversible error.

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. Crawford v. Shivashankar, 474 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (any error in the exclusion of expert’s medical opinion was harmless in that it would have been cumulative of the testimony of four other physicians); Aiken v. Miller, 298 So.2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); see also Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Estate of Castaño, 544 So.2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (no showing that the limitation placed on the number of experts permitted to testify affected the jury verdict).

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

A judgment was entered on a jury verdict fixing the plaintiffs’ damages at $26,-000 as a result of an automobile collision which aggravated Mrs. Kennedy’s pre-ex-isting injuries. The Kennedys’ single contention on appeal is that the trial court’s exclusion of one of their medical experts constitutes reversible error.

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. Crawford v. Shivashankar, 474 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (any error in the exclusion of expert’s medical opinion was harmless in that it would have been cumulative of the testimony of four other physicians); Aiken v. Miller, 298 So.2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); see also Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Estate of Castaño, 544 So.2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (no showing that the limitation placed on the number of experts permitted to testify affected the jury verdict).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 So. 2d 216, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 681, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1288, 1989 WL 21420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kennedy-v-brago-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack