21ST CENTURY
v.
SMITH
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.
Although the trial court abused its discretion in limiting expert witness testimony, the error was harmless and does not warrant reversal.
[1] Abuse of discretion in limiting expert witness testimony is harmless error when the excluded testimony is cumulative or does not affect the outcome of the case.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence21st Century Centennial Insurance Company appealed a trial court judgment in favor of Jacqueline Smith. The trial court limited the testimony of one o…
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 Cumulative Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED 21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D16-3821
JACQUELINE SMITH,
Appellee. ________________________________/ Decision filed January 26, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Donald A. Myers, Jr., Judge. Thomas E. Scott, Scott A. Cole and Alexandra Valdes, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellant. Rebecca Bowen Creed and Bryan S. Gowdy, of Creed & Gowdy, P.A., Jacksonville, and Howard C. Coker, Joseph V. Camerlengo, Jr., and Stefano D. Portigliatti, of Coker, Schickel, Sorenson & Posgay, Camerlengo & Iracki, Jacksonville, for Appellee. PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
COHEN, C.J., and WALLIS, J., concur. EVANDER, J., concurs specially, with opinion
2
Case No. 5D16-3821 EVANDER, J., concurring specially. Appellant is correct that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the testimony of one of its expert witnesses. However, after consideration of the record before us, I cannot conclude that the error was harmful. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Brago, 544 So. 2d 216, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“After reviewing the record, we conclude that the proffered testimony—that there was a degeneration in Mrs. Kennedy’s condition after the accident—was cumulative and therefore its exclusion was harmless.”).