335 So. 2d 300 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1976
Lead Opinion
Appellee-plaintiff Prestridge is the surviving widow of her deceased husband. She instituted this suit individually and as the administratrix of the estate against appellant-defendant Norge seeking damages for the wrongful death of her husband. Pursuant to a jury verdict, the trial judge entered a judgment in her favor in the sum of $412,500.00 individually and $1,538.-70 as administratrix.
The point posed by Norge that requires reversal for a new trial is the abuse of discretion by the- trial court in permitting plaintiff’s expert economist, Dr. Joseph Perry, to testify as a witness.
The case came on for trial on Monday, December 9, 1974, at 9:30 a.m. A pre-trial conference was held at 3:15 p.m. on the Friday afternoon preceding the Monday trial date, and on this occasion, for the first time, plaintiff advised the court and defense counsel that Dr. Perry would be utilized as an expert economist in proving plaintiff’s damages.
“. . . There is no excuse now that you can offer me for not furnishing him that man’s name, because you knew you were going to use him.
“As I say, I am doing this with reluctance and I am cautioning counsel that you may have given a legitimate cause for ground for appeal, you see, in this case by not furnishing.
“These witness surprises, we have done away with that in the new rules that we have for civil procedure.
“All right, I am going to permit this testimony over the objection and we will note your objection in the record.”
A trial judge is vested with broad discretionary power for the proper conduct of litigation.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
. Norge’s motion for new trial alleged, inter alia:
“ • • . The Court erred and abused its discretion in permitting plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Joseph Perry, an Economist to testify over objection made by the Defendant on the grounds that his name was not provided to defendant’s counsel pursuant to pre-trial instructions wherein counsel were directed to exchange witness lists, but in fact his name
. Henningsen v. Smith, 174 So.2d 85 (Fla.App. 2nd 1965).
. Green v. Shoop, 240 So.2d 85 (Fla.App. 3rd 1970).
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring specially) .
I concur in reversal on the procedural ground discussed in the majority opinion. However, I am not of the view that it is our prerogative to determine that the damages awarded by the jury “are far out of line”. I therefore concur in the result reached.