99 BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., AND GULFSTREAM BROADCASTING CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
RONALD E. CRIDER, INDIVIDUALLY, NANCY E. CRIDER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND BROADCAST AUTOMATION ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
99 Broadcasting Company and Gulfstream Broadcasting appealed a jury verdict and attorney's fee award in favor of Crider and the Broadcast Automation Association. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for retrial, finding critical procedural errors including introduction of an undisclosed witness and improper jury instructions that likely affected the outcome.
The court reversed all awards and remanded for retrial because the trial court erred in allowing amendment at the close of evidence to present an undisclosed witness and damages theory, erred in giving jury instructions on issues not warranted by the pleadings, and erred in awarding attorney's fees to Mrs. Crider without legal justification.
[1] A party should not be permitted to amend their pleadings at the close of evidence to seek damages based on the testimony of an undisclosed witness.
[2] A trial court errs by instructing the jury on issues not supported by the pleadings.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The most serious of the errors which occasion this opinion lies in the addition of Mr. Barnes, a witness not disclosed on appellees' witness list prior to trial, and in inclusion of an issue as a result of his testimony that could well have affected the outcome.”
Identifies the primary error that warranted reversal—introduction of an undisclosed witness and new damages theory
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a dispute between broadcasting companies and individuals/entities including Ronald and Nancy Crider and the Broadcast Automation Ass…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Course Of Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment based upon a jury verdict in favor of two appellees and a post-verdict award of attorney’s fees to the remaining appellee. We reverse all of the awards and remand the matter for retrial on the merits. The trial court is free to consider any amendments to the parties’ pleadings, as it considers appropriate, should amendments be sought prior to retrial. We direct, however, that prior to retrial the parties be ordered to present to the trial court a complete pretrial stipulation reciting clearly the issues to be tried, the witnesses to be called and the exhibits to be introduced. The error here occurred, in our judgment, because of the absence of such order. The most serious of the errors which occasion this opinion lies in the addition of Mr. Barnes, a witness not disclosed on appellees’ witness list prior to trial, and in inclusion of an issue as a result of his testimony that could well have affected the outcome.
The candor of appellees’ counsel at oral argument in acknowledging the possibility of such harm was complimentary to him as we realize there was no order of the trial court which required such witness list. Nevertheless, the list was furnished, on which Mr. Barnes’ name did not appear; and at trial the undisclosed witness suggested a theory of damages upon which the jury may well have based its verdict. In these circumstances appellees should not have been permitted to amend at the close of the evidence to seek such damages. The other error which could be viewed as harmful was in the trial court’s instructions on the “fraud of the buyer” and “course of conduct,” when the issues as pled did not warrant same.
The only other matter which warrants comment relating to the conduct of the trial is the introduction of the printout, but this problem will obviously be corrected by the trial court’s order prior to retrial.
As for the attorney’s fees awarded to Mrs. Crider, there is no legal justification for the award. See Greenberg v. Manor Pines Realty Corp., 414 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and Klein v. Layne, Inc. of Florida, 453 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Accordingly, the order must be reversed.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and GOLDMAN, MURRAY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Merastar Ins. Co. v. Webb, 932 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…v. Lee, 847 So. 2d 1077, 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We hold the trial court erred in admitting into evidence and refusing to strike previously undisclosed evidence of plaintiffs prescription drug bills. See generally 99 Broadcasting Co. v. Crider, 493 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (holding that it was error to allow testimony of undisclosed witness who suggested a new theory of damages upon which jury verdict may well have been based). We remand for the trial court to grant a remittitur for the amount of t…
Authorities Cited
- Klein v. Layne, 453 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Greenberg v. Manor Pines Realty Corp., 414 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)