Ring Power Corporation v. Condado-Perez
219 So. 3d 1028
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Collision on I‑75: while driving a service truck for Ring Power, Quandt rear‑ended Condado‑Perez's Ford Expedition after traffic reacted to a mattress in the road; Condado and passenger Rodriguez were seriously injured.
- Competing accounts: Condado testified Quandt followed too closely and struck him while Condado steered into the left shoulder; Quandt testified Condado suddenly swerved left into his path.
- EMS report: Pasco County paramedic Kyle Paton prepared an EMS (patient care) report the day of the crash noting that "Husband states he swerved to avoid a mattress in the road and lost control," attributed to Condado.
- Pretrial motion: Condado moved in limine to exclude that quoted statement from the EMS report (while stipulating to the report’s authenticity); trial court excluded the statement and Paton’s deposition testimony referring to it.
- Verdict and appeal: Jury apportioned liability (65% Quandt, 33% Condado, 2% unknown mattress source) and awarded damages; Ring Power appealed, arguing the exclusion of Condado’s statement and Paton’s deposition was erroneous and prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Condado) | Defendant's Argument (Ring Power) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Condado’s statement in EMS report | Statement untrustworthy (mislabeling as "husband," limited English, omissions); exclusion proper | Statement is admission by party opponent and admissible under §90.803(18); EMS report authentic and business record | Reversed: statement was an admission and admissible; exclusion was abuse of discretion |
| Whether introduction of the EMS report waives trustworthiness objections | Introducing report does not concede truth of each internal statement | By introducing the report, Condado waived challenges to its trustworthiness and foundation | Court treated waiver as applicable: admission of the report undermined objections to that statement |
| Admissibility of Paton’s deposition (unavailable witness) | Deposition not admissible as it would introduce excluded out‑of‑court statement | Deposition admissible under evidence rules and civil procedure to present Paton’s account | Court noted error in exclusion of deposition likely improper and connected to EMS statement exclusion; new trial warranted |
| Harmless‑error analysis and need for new trial | Exclusion did not affect verdict | Error was harmless because other evidence supported verdict | Court held exclusion was not harmless—statement corroborated defense theory—reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Nieuwendaal, 253 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971) (admissions against interest admissible as substantive evidence)
- McKay v. Perry, 286 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (party statements regarding causation admissible as admissions)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Higgins, 788 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (statements to physicians admissible as party admissions)
- Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (2000) (party introducing evidence generally cannot complain on appeal of its admission)
- Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014) (harmless‑error standard and burden on beneficiary to show no contribution to verdict)
- Phillips v. Ficarra, 618 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (exclusion of medical records that contradict a party’s theory is not harmless)