Rice v. Kelly

483 So. 2d 559, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 535
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 26, 1986
Docket85-554
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 483 So. 2d 559 (Rice v. Kelly) 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
Rice v. Kelly, 483 So. 2d 559, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 535 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

483 So.2d 559 (1986)

Robert RICE and Evelyn Rice, Appellants,
v.
Willie J. KELLY and Annie M. Kelly D/B/a Kelly's Laundromat and Old Republic Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Appellees.

No. 85-554.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

February 26, 1986.

Richard G. Newhouse, of Law Offices of Richard G. Newhouse, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Ronald E. Solomon and Joseph C. Murphy, of Solomon, Murphy & Cote, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Although we believe the trial court erred in granting a motion in limine that had the effect of limiting appellants' claim for damages, we reluctantly conclude that such error was harmless in view of the jury's finding for the appellees on the issue of liability.

The record reflects that the appellant, Robert Rice, Jr., fell and injured his back and head at appellees' laundromat. Sometime later, and according to Rice because of dizziness from his head injury at the laundromat, Rice fell again and further injured his back. Later, the doctors had a difficult time determining which fall caused Rice's chronic back problems. The trial *560 court refused to let Rice offer proof that his second fall was caused by the head injury suffered in the first fall. This was clearly error.

In Dailey v. Multicon Development, Inc., 417 So.2d 1106 (Fla.4th DCA 1982) we condemned the use of motions in limine to summarily dismiss a portion of a claim. That is precisely what occurred here by the use of an oral motion made without notice on the first day of trial. The trial court granted the motion because there was no specific allegation in the complaint stating that the second fall was caused by the first. We are unaware of such a requirement. Cf. Eli Witt Cigar & Tobacco Co. v. Matatics, 55 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1951). In addition, the record reflects that Rice claimed in deposition and other discovery taken two years before trial that the second fall was caused by the first, and that a pretrial stipulation was filed several months before trial specifically stating that Rice was claiming that the second fall was caused by the first. As in Dailey we caution trial courts not to allow "motions in limine" to be used as unwritten and unnoticed motions for partial summary judgment or motions to dismiss.

ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and FEDER, RICHARD YALE, Associate Judge, concur.

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

Related

Reinaldo Reina Jr. v. William Joseph Klisivitch
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
City of West Palm Beach v. McCray
91 So. 3d 165 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Saunders v. Alois
604 So. 2d 18 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Fouts v. Bowling
596 So. 2d 95 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Buy-Low Save Centers, Inc. v. Glinert
547 So. 2d 1283 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Brock v. GD Searle & Co.
530 So. 2d 428 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
483 So. 2d 559, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-kelly-fladistctapp-1986.