Laurent v. Uniroyal, Inc.

515 So. 2d 1050, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2679, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11119, 1987 WL 1777
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 24, 1987
Docket86-3106
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 515 So. 2d 1050 (Laurent v. Uniroyal, Inc.) 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
Laurent v. Uniroyal, Inc., 515 So. 2d 1050, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2679, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11119, 1987 WL 1777 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

515 So.2d 1050 (1987)

Marie LAURENT, Appellant,
v.
UNIROYAL, INC., Appellee.

No. 86-3106.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

November 24, 1987.

*1051 Friedman & Miller and Robert Miller, North Miami Beach, and Mark L. Siedle, Hollywood, for appellant.

Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane and Shelley H. Leinicke, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In Marie Laurent's appeal from an adverse Final Judgment, she cites as error the trial court's refusal to permit the introduction of a rebuttal witness' testimony impeaching Uniroyal, Inc.'s expert witness and the trial court's exclusion of testimony as to what the vehicle owner would have done if Uniroyal had warned against mixing types of tires. We affirm.

First, we find no error in the trial court's exclusion of Laurent's rebuttal testimony which was cumulative in nature and should have been presented during Laurent's case-in-chief. See Thomas v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 424 So.2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Reeder v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 338 So.2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Driscoll v. Morris, 114 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959).

Second, we find no error because Laurent's accident expert testified that the failure to warn was a proximate cause of the accident, and since the proffered testimony was cumulative, its exclusion was harmless. See Thomas; Reeder. Furthermore, the record reflects that the cause of the accident was hotly disputed, that the jury considered many theories of the case, and that the issue of Uniroyal's failure to warn was properly before the jury. See Giddens v. Denman Rubber Mfg. Co., 440 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Finding no basis for reversal, see Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough, 355 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 1978); Gonzalez v. Leon, 511 So.2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), we affirm.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Sorondo v. Batet
782 So. 2d 540 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Mathias v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.
677 So. 2d 328 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Dorvil v. Purolator Courier Corp.
578 So. 2d 294 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Mathias v. Uniroyal, Inc.
549 So. 2d 1154 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Wellinghoff v. Lopez
538 So. 2d 909 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Rhodes v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.
528 So. 2d 459 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
515 So. 2d 1050, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2679, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11119, 1987 WL 1777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laurent-v-uniroyal-inc-fladistctapp-1987.