CIVIL PROCEDURE: EVIDENCE: EXPERT TESTIMONY: UNPLED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS; VERDICT FORM: ONE PROVISION FOR DAMAGES ON SIX COUNTS; APPEALS: TWO ISSUE RULE; PREJUDGMENT INTEREST

Sargeant v. Al-Saleh, ___ So. 3d ___, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1068 (Fla. 4th DCA May 15, 2013)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding defense expert testimony relating to an unpled affirmative defense.  The testimony would have dealt with Jordanian law, but “all jury instructions on Jordanian law had been extensively negotiated and were presented Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

TORTS: NEGLIGENCE: PREMISES LIABILITY: SLIP AND FALL; EVIDENCE: EXPERT TESTIMONY: FRYE HEARING UNNECESSARY IF TESTIMONY IS BASED ON EXPERT’S TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE: EXPERT TESMIMONY MUST BE BASED ON FACTS OR INFERENCES SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD; CIVIL PROCEDURE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Chavez v. McDonald’s Restaurant of Florida, Inc., ___ So. 3d ___, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D431 (Fla. 5th DCA February 22, 2013)

The plaintiff slipped and fell in a McDonald’s restaurant.  The trial court entered summary judgment for McDonald’s, but the appellate court reversed because it concluded that McDonald’s owed a duty of care to the plaintiff because he … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

CRIMINAL LAW: EVIDENCE: EXPERT TESTIMONY: FINGERPRINTS: AUTHENTICATION: CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Mack v. State, ___ So. 3d ___, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D389 (Fla. 3d DCA February 20, 2013)

The trial court allowed the State’s expert witness to testify that latent fingerprints taken at the crime scene matched those of the defendant although the detective who lifted the prints did not testify.  The appellate court affirmed “because the State laid sufficient … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

CRIMINAL LAW: EVIDENCE: EXPERT TESTIMONY: BOLSTERING

Miller v. State, ___ So. 3d ___, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D2780 (Fla. 4th DCA December 5, 2012)

The court reversed the defendant’s conviction because the State’s handwriting experts improperly bolstered their opinions by testifying “that other non-testifying examiners verified the[ir] identification[s].”… Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

TORTS: MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE; EVIDENCE: EXPERT TESTIMONY: IMEACHMENT: COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE: ASKING DEFENSE DOCTORS ABOUT INCOME RECEIVED FROM DEFENSE COUNSEL’S EMPLOYER DID NOT INTRODUCE THE SUBJECT OF INSURANCE

Herrera v. Moustafa, ___ So. 3d ___, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1950 (Fla. 4th DCA August 15, 2012)

The plaintiff’s lawyer, in a motor vehicle negligence case, did not violate the collateral source rule by introducing the subject of insurance when he asked the defense doctors about the amount of income they received over a period of years from … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...