Probkevitz v. Velda Farms
22 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2009) (September)
The plaintiff’s 15-year-old daughter was killed when her car was hit by a truck in a night-time accident. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death suit as her daughter’s personal representative. At trial, the judge allowed the plaintiff’s alleged negligence in allowing her daughter to drive at night to be introduced and to appear on the jury form. The plaintiff had gone to bed without knowing that her daughter was planning to drive anywhere. The trial judge also limited the testimony of the plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert to the operation of the truck. On top of that, the judge allowed a police officer to testify, over the plaintiff’s objection, that he believed the daughter had failed to stop at a red light. The district court reversed all three of these decisions. It held that there was no evidence in the record that the plaintiff was at all negligent and that it was not harmless error since it could have confused the jury regarding the issues of the case. As to the expert testimony, the defendant argued that it was cumulative and should be excluded. The district court held that it was rebuttal testimony that went to the heart of the defense’s case. Finally, the district court held that opinion testimony suggesting that the plaintiff had been guilty of a traffic violation was prejudicial error.