Purpose of a Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence

In order to avoid prejudicial or irrelevant evidence from being introduced to the jury by the adverse party, a party will file a motion in limine to exclude this evidence. “Generally, the purpose of a motion in limine is to prevent the introduction of improper evidence, the mere mention of which at trial would be prejudicial.” Buy-Low Save Centers, Inc. v. Glinert, 547 So.2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Stated differently: “The purpose of a motion in limine is to exclude irrelevant and immaterial matters, or to exclude evidence when its probative value is outweighed by the danger of...

28 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Appellate Court Reversing Trial Court Granting Motion for New Trial

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

There are times a trial court may grant a motion for a new trial after the jury's verdict. Naturally, the party that received the benefit of the jury's verdict will appeal the trial court's ruling granting the motion for a new trial. A good example can be found in Smith v. Lyles, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1079a (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), a personal injury case, where the trial court granted a new trial in favor of the plaintiff after the jury found the defendant was not liable. The trial court granted the new trial because it found: (a) the defendant had improper testimony;...

15 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Make Sure Your Expert’s Opinion is Reliable

Posted by David Adelstein

in Uncategorized

I use expert witnesses in many cases. Many. Experts are an important part of cases, particularly complicated disputes where an expert opinion is absolutely warranted. But, as I have discussed in prior articles, an expert's opinion needs to have a foundation of reliability, which is governed by the Daubert standard. Without ensuring that an expert's opinion is reliable, then parties will hire the Joe Blows of the world, pay them a minimal dollar amount, for an outrageous, unsupported, and unqualified opinion. This, of course, provides no value. Hence, the Daubert standard or test "requires that '[t]he testimony is based upon sufficient...

30 May

0 Comments

Sticky

“Other Products” Evidence to Support Alternate Causation Theory

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence, Standard of Review

The recent case of Arizona Chemical Company, LLC v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1213a (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) is a case I discussed regarding lost profit damages. Check out that article here. But, this case also raised an interesting trial and appellate issue involving “other products” evidence to support an alternate causation argument, such as when a specific product or manufactured component fails. This case involved a manufacturer of a specific brand of carpet suing the manufacturer of resin that was used in manufacturing the failed carpet brand. The carpet manufacturer claimed that the resin failure caused an...

05 November

0 Comments

Sticky

Recipient of Trial Court’s Error Needs to Prove Harmless Error

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

I previously discussed that the “no reasonable possibility test” is the harmless error test in civil trials. This means that even if the trial judge committed an error, the recipient of the error (generally the appellee) has to prove that the error was harmless in that there was no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict (against the appellant). Here is a case where the trial court committed error but the appellee that prevailed at trial was unable to establish that the error was harmless. Thus, the error committed by the trial court was deemed to be reversible error entitling...

25 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Admissions Against Party Opponent (Hearsay Exception) Does Not Need to be Based on Party’s Personal Knowledge

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

An admission against a party opponent is an important exception to the hearsay rule. I previously discussed this hearsay exception in detail because it is an exception that routinely applies in order to admit testimony / evidence at trial. Recently, the case of Jones v. Alayon, 2015 WL 1545005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) discussed the applicability of this exception. This case was a wrongful death action brought by the decedent’s daughter as personal representative of the estate stemming from an automobile accident caused by an off-duty police officer that originally fled the scene of the accident. The jury awarded the plaintiff...

07 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Introducing Character Evidence of Prior Bad Acts in a Civil Case

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

"Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." Fla.Stat. s. 90.401. I have previously discussed that evidence needs to be relevant for it to be admissible but that not all relevant evidence is admissible (e.g., if the probative value of that evidence is outweighed by unfair prejudice, etc., then the relevant evidence is not admissible). When is evidence of a person's character ever relevant (such as the character of a plaintiff or defendant) to prove or disprove a material fact in a civil case? Generally speaking, it is not relevant and, even if it was relevant, the...