Landrum v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

535 So. 2d 656, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 10, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5593, 1988 WL 135677
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 20, 1988·No. No. 88-492·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM,

We deny certiorari. The order below, which, inter alia, provides for the autopsy of the body of the plaintiff in the event of his death during the pendency of this litigation,1 does not depart from the essential requirements of the law. Instead, the order is entirely consistent with the longstanding principle that

[657]*657“[t]he exhumation or the autopsy of a corpse, when useful to ascertain facts in litigation, should of course be performed. Reverence for the memory of those who have departed does not require us to abdicate the high duty of doing justice to the living_”
J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2221, at 197-98 (McNaughton rev. 1961) (emphasis in original).

See Esgro v. Trezza, 492 So.2d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 501 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 1986). See also In re Certain Asbestos Cases, 113 F.R.D. 612 (N.D.Tex.1986); In re Certain Asbestos Cases, 112 F.R.D. 427 (N.D.Tex.1986).

Certiorari denied.

NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ., concur.

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

Landrum v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 535 So. 2d 656, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 10, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5593, 1988 WL 135677 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

535 So. 2d 656 (Landrum v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gottlieb v. Samiian
999 So. 2d 678 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)