Rotte v. City of Jacksonville

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rotte v. City of Jacksonville

543 So. 2d 842, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1192, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2705, 1989 WL 49602

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 16, 1989

DocketNo. 88-592

StatusPublished

This text of 543 So. 2d 842 (Rotte v. City of Jacksonville) 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

Rotte v. City of Jacksonville, 543 So. 2d 842, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1192, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2705, 1989 WL 49602 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge.

The trial court committed reversible error in refusing to allow appellant’s counsel to cross-examine Detective Carlson. Section 768.28(9), Florida Statutes (1981), read in pari materia with section 90.608(2) and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.450(a), indicates that the legislature intended that when an employee of the state or its subdivision is called as a witness in a tort action which resulted from his actions, he must be considered an adverse witness, and there is therefore no need to establish that he is “unwilling or hostile” under rule 1.450(a) before he may be interrogated by leading questions under that rule or impeached under section 90.608(2). In other words, the trial court in this case had no discretion on this point and was required by section 768.28(9) to allow Carlson to be led and to be impeached by inconsistent statements as an adverse witness.

REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

BARFIELD, Judge.

The trial court committed reversible error in refusing to allow appellant’s counsel to cross-examine Detective Carlson. Section 768.28(9), Florida Statutes (1981), read in pari materia with section 90.608(2) and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.450(a), indicates that the legislature intended that when an employee of the state or its subdivision is called as a witness in a tort action which resulted from his actions, he must be considered an adverse witness, and there is therefore no need to establish that he is “unwilling or hostile” under rule 1.450(a) before he may be interrogated by leading questions under that rule or impeached under section 90.608(2). In other words, the trial court in this case had no discretion on this point and was required by section 768.28(9) to allow Carlson to be led and to be impeached by inconsistent statements as an adverse witness.

REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

543 So. 2d 842, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1192, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2705, 1989 WL 49602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rotte-v-city-of-jacksonville-fladistctapp-1989.