Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Melissa Burns, Etc.

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 12, 2025
Docket3D2023-1725
StatusPublished

This text of Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Melissa Burns, Etc. (Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Melissa Burns, Etc.) 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
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Melissa Burns, Etc., (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 12, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1725 Lower Tribunal No. 20-18605 ________________

Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., Appellant,

vs.

Melissa Burns, etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.

Wallen | Kelley, and Todd L. Wallen; Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig, LLP, and F. Bryant Blevins (Tampa), for appellant.

The Haggard Law Firm, P.A., and James C. Blecke, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.

LOGUE, C.J. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. appeals a final judgment in favor of the Estate of

Matthew Burns following a jury trial in a product liability wrongful death

action. Sunbelt raises several arguments on appeal. We address two: (1)

whether the testimony of two of the Estate’s experts should have been

excluded under the Daubert1 standard; and (2) whether the testimony of one

of the Estate’s experts should have been excluded as surprise testimony.

Sunbelt argues that had the testimony of these experts been excluded, then

the record would be insufficient to support the jury’s finding of causation. For

the reasons stated below, we reject these challenges and affirm the jury

verdict.

BACKGROUND

Given the nature of this appeal, it is necessary to review the facts and

proceedings below in some detail. Matthew Burns was last seen alive on the

night of July 12, 2019, in his auto repair shop. The following morning, he was

found on the floor of the shop, dead from carbon monoxide poisoning. The

question at the heart of the case concerned the source of the carbon

monoxide that killed Burns.

The Estate contended the carbon monoxide came from a BlastPro BP

10-27 Shot Blaster, which Burns rented from Sunbelt to resurface the floors

1 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

2 of his auto repair shop. The Shot Blaster was a piece of riding equipment

powered by a 25-horsepower propane motor that was designed to strip floors

with high pressure blasts of recirculating shot. The Shot Blaster’s manual

indicated that a carbon monoxide monitor should be used when operating

the Shot Blaster. Sunbelt did not provide Burns a carbon monoxide monitor

when it rented him the Shot Blaster. Also, it did not advise him regarding the

use of a carbon monoxide monitor when instructing him on the use of the

machine. The Estate filed suit against Sunbelt for strict liability, negligent

failure to warn, and negligent failure to maintain.

I. Pre-Trial Proceedings – The Estate’s Expert Opinions

A. Dr. Weaver

The Estate retained Dr. Lindell Weaver as its medical expert witness.

Dr. Weaver provided an affidavit containing his expert opinions. Dr. Weaver

opined that “even a low concentration of carbon monoxide (i.e., like occurs

when someone operates a combustion engine in a partially enclosed space

like a warehouse even with doors open) over a long period of time can result

in someone succumbing to carbon monoxide poisoning.” Dr. Weaver further

opined that the operation of small combustion engines, such as the Shot

Blaster, “even in a space that is perceived or appears to be ‘well ventilated’

can cause carbon monoxide poisoning.” Dr. Weaver explained that this is

3 because low concentrations of carbon monoxide with long periods of

exposure can injure the body and cause death. Dr. Weaver cited to a study

of small gas-powered tools with smaller engines than the Shot Blaster that

produced poisoning levels of carbon monoxide when run in garages with the

garage doors open.

Dr. Weaver further explained that a “key consideration for exposure to

carbon monoxide is the proximity of a person to the source of carbon

monoxide.” Dr. Weaver stated that the “highest concentration of carbon

monoxide produced by combustible engines is from the engine’s exhaust

pipe opening[,]” and noted that the Shot Blaster’s exhaust was in close

proximity to the operator of the Shot Blaster. “Thus, [ ] Burns, while operating

the Shot Blaster, regardless of whether the garage door was open or closed,

was exposed continuously to the highest levels of carbon monoxide.”

Dr. Weaver further opined Burns did not have the requisite time to

lower his levels of carboxyhemoglobin “if he worked on the machine

continuously or with short breaks throughout the day/evening of the incident.”

Thus, Dr. Weaver opined it was more likely than not that Burns, because of

operating the Shot Blaster for several hours in one day, had an elevated

carboxyhemoglobin level that never returned to baseline levels, which

4 shortened the time of critical exposure and significantly increased the

opportunity for his poisoning. As a result, Dr. Weaver opined that,

within a reasonable degree of medical probability, [ ] Burns inhaled lethal amounts of carbon monoxide produced by the [Shot Blaster] over the period of July 12, 2019 to July 13, 2019. This was confirmed by [ ] Burns’ post-mortem carboxyhemoglobin level of 57%. It is my opinion [ ] Burns succumbed to the levels of carbon monoxide, lost consciousness and died shortly thereafter.

Dr. Weaver indicated his opinion was based on his review of various

documents, including the police report, police photographs, fire rescue

report, medical examiner’s report, photographs and videos of Burns on July

12, 2019, photographs of the garage, deposition transcripts of Burns’ wife,

and the affidavits of Robert Lemoine (Burns’ employee), and Kos Galatsis

(the Estate’s engineering expert). He also indicated his opinion was based

on his “training and experience as a board-certified internist, with training

and experience in pulmonology and critical care, with decades of experience

treating and studying carbon monoxide poisonings[.]”

Dr. Weaver was deposed on April 7, 2023. Dr. Weaver acknowledged

he had not conducted any site inspections or tested any machinery. He

explained that he drew his opinion about the cause and origin of the carbon

monoxide that killed Burns from the fact that Burns was operating a machine

that produced carbon monoxide (the Shot Blaster) and because he had ruled

5 out other sources of carbon monoxide based on his review of deposition

testimony.

Dr. Weaver testified he had not conducted any investigation into the

ventilation system, airflow, or air exchange rate in Burns’ garage on July 12-

13, 2019. He further agreed that based on the deposition testimony he

reviewed of Lemoine and Burns’ two garage neighbors, Burns was not

displaying symptoms of carbon monoxide exposure when he was last seen.

Dr. Weaver also agreed that, if Burns had gone home after he was last seen

on the night of July 12, 2019, he would likely be alive today.

Dr. Weaver acknowledged he had no precise knowledge as to what

occurred after Burns was last seen on the night he died but based on

Lemoine’s observation that not much more of the floor had been stripped

when he arrived the next day, Dr. Weaver took this to indicate Burns did not

operate the Shot Blaster for very long on his own after Lemoine left for the

day. Dr.

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

Related

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993)
General Electric Co. v. Joiner
522 U.S. 136 (Supreme Court, 1997)
Behar v. Root
393 So. 2d 1169 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Megan E. Baan, as the Personal etc. v. Columbia County
180 So. 3d 1127 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Melissa Burns, Etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sunbelt-rentals-inc-v-melissa-burns-etc-fladistctapp-2025.