KEVIN STEWART v. DEAN D. DRALEAUS
226 So. 3d 990
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- 2006 nighttime motorcycle accident: Stewart (Camaro) and three plaintiffs on two motorcycles; plaintiffs allege Stewart struck Reagle’s bike, which hit Draleaus’s; Reagle’s passenger was Vincent.
- Plaintiffs had been at a bar/restaurant earlier that evening; Reagle had a temporary motorcycle license that prohibited carrying a passenger.
- Conflicting accounts: plaintiffs say Stewart raced/paced and struck the motorcycles; Stewart denies contact and attributes collision to Reagle’s maneuver. Witness testimony was inconsistent about speeds and proximity.
- A nearby driver involved in a subsequent minor fender-bender (the “minor accident witness”) told an investigating officer she saw one motorcycle move into the other’s lane; at trial, the court excluded that prior statement under the accident-report privilege.
- The trial court also excluded evidence of plaintiffs’ pre-accident alcohol consumption and evidence that Reagle violated his license restriction; jury allocated fault 55% to Stewart, 45% to Reagle. Stewart appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior inconsistent statement by the minor accident witness | The witness’s on-scene statement was inconsistent and relevant to liability | Statement was protected by accident-report privilege because she was involved in a later fender-bender | Reversed: privilege did not bar her statements about the motorcycle crash; accidents were separate and she was not compelled to report about the motorcycle collision |
| Admissibility of plaintiffs’ pre-accident alcohol evidence | Excluding alcohol evidence proper because post-accident blood tests were negative and retrograde extrapolation was not shown; prejudice outweighs probative value | Evidence (admissions, smelling alcohol, expert testimony about impairment) is relevant to comparative negligence and non-speculative | Reversed: evidence admissible; jury must decide impairment and comparative-fault issues; defendant may pursue §768.36 defense |
| Admissibility of Reagle’s license-violation (carrying passenger) | Violation irrelevant to negligent operation; mere licensing infraction not probative | License restriction is relevant because carrying a passenger affects motorcycle dynamics and bears on negligence/inexperience | Reversed: evidence relevant and should be presented to jury to assess causation and fault |
| Standard of review for evidentiary rulings | n/a | n/a | De novo review for statutory privilege question; abuse of discretion (guided by rules of evidence) for other evidentiary rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- McTevia v. Schrag, 446 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (accident-report privilege limited to those required to report)
- Brackin v. Boles, 452 So.2d 540 (Fla. 1984) (driver’s license violation admissible only if relevant to negligent operation)
- Sottilaro v. Figueroa, 86 So.3d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (witness statements not barred by accident-report privilege when witness not required to report)
- Seltzer v. Grine, 79 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1955) (alcohol consumption relevant to impairment and negligence; jury fact issue)
- Pantoja v. State, 59 So.3d 1092 (Fla. 2011) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)