157 So. 3d 305
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Motorcycle (Max Carpenter, passenger Rebecca Carpenter) traveling west straight through an intersection collided with Shaver’s car as he attempted a left turn from the east; both Carpenters were injured.
- At trial the jury awarded damages and found Shaver 95% at fault, Max Carpenter 5% at fault.
- The status of the traffic signal at the time of collision was inconclusive; statutory instructions on yielding and green-signal conduct were given.
- At trial an investigating trooper testified that Shaver violated Carpenter’s right-of-way and Carpenter did not violate Shaver’s right-of-way.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel read Shaver’s interrogatory answers revealing he had surveilled the Carpenters on multiple days, though defense counsel did not introduce surveillance videos or testify about them.
- The court found both evidentiary rulings erroneous and reversed and remanded for a new trial; damages issues were mooted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the investigating officer could testify who violated the right-of-way | Officer’s viewpoint and investigation support admission to show fault | Such testimony usurps the jury’s role and improperly suggests who would be cited | Exclusion required; allowing officer to state who violated right-of-way was error — reversal and new trial |
| Whether plaintiff could publish defendant’s interrogatory answers disclosing surveillance when videos were not introduced | Answers are admissible and show defendant’s conduct or attitude toward plaintiffs | Answers are irrelevant if surveillance videos/testimony are not offered; admission is prejudicial | Error to admit interrogatory answers about surveillance absent relevance; reversal and new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 700 So.2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA) (investigating officer should not state who caused accident or who would be cited)
- Silvers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 826 So.2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA) (interrogatory answers admissible when they prove a material fact)
- Dodson v. Persell, 390 So.2d 704 (Fla.) (surveillance and videos discoverable and can prevent fraudulent or overstated claims)
- Galgano v. Buchanan, 783 So.2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA) (officer testimony about citations can deprive a party of a fair trial)
- Albertson v. Stark, 294 So.2d 698 (Fla. 4th DCA) (jurors may treat officer’s charging decision as dispositive of fault)
- Spanagel v. Love, 585 So.2d 317 (Fla. 5th DCA) (officer’s testimony implying proper driving is prejudicial even if no citation question was asked)