PACIFIC INDEMNITY CO., A CORPORATION, WALTER C. BAUDER AND W. S. BADCOCK CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES F. DOSSEY AND MAUDE E. DOSSEY, HUSBAND AND WIFE, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the introduction of a deposition, and even if it had erred, the error would have been harmless.
Appellants appealed a personal injury judgment, arguing the trial court erred by excluding a deposition from Dr. Verner. Dr. Verner's deposition conce…
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 Deposition Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants appeal a final judgment entered against them in a personal injury action. The sole point relied upon by appellants for reversal is that the trial court committed reversible error in denying the introduction into evidence of a deposition of one Dr. John V. Verner.
Dr. Verner’s deposition consisted of the results of certain psychological tests given the appellee, Mrs. Dossey, by persons other than Dr. Verner. Dr. Verner testified that the laboratory tests administered to Mrs. Dossey were “not foolproof, it’s only a crude estimate at best and it’s meant to be used by the examining physician if he thinks it fits with his observations, then he uses it; if he doesn’t think it is, he throws it out.” Neither of the examining physicians that testified in the cause mentioned the use of these tests.
*589We think that the trial court was eminently correct in denying the introduction into evidence of the deposition of Dr. Verner.
Even assuming that the deposition should have been admitted into evidence, such error in the instant case would be harmless error as the opinion of Dr. Ver-ner as to Mrs. Dossey’s condition was merely cumulative of the opinion of Dr. Jackson who testified in the cause.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed is
Affirmed.
PIERCE, C. L, and LILES, J., concur.