25 April

Sticky

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

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...

22 April

0 Comments

Sticky

A Civil Action – Great Movie Regarding “Proving Your Case”

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

The movie A Civil Action is a great movie about the trials and tribulations of a lawsuit and, importantly, the challenges in proving YOUR case. Enjoy these clips and please check out the movie. Please contact David Adelstein at [email protected] or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1....

16 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Purpose of a Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, 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...

01 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Proving Affirmative Defenses and the Affirmative Defense of Comparative Negligence

Posted by David Adelstein

in Burden of Proof, Jury Instructions

When a defendant is sued, the defendant will typically assert affirmative defenses (or defenses to the claims asserted by the plaintiff). Just like a plaintiff has the burden of proof to prove its claims against a defendant, the defendant has the burden of proof to prove its affirmative defenses. The recent opinion in Bongiorno v. Americorp., 40 Fla L. Weekly D760c (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) exemplifies that a defendant that asserts an affirmative defense has the burden of proving that defense. This case was a personal injury negligence case. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to her negligence, i.e.,...

29 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Considerations Involving Proposals for Settlement / Offers for Judgment

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

There needs to be a contractual or statutory basis in order to be entitled to recover your reasonable attorneys' fees at trial. See Cadenhead v. Gaetz, 677 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). This means either the contract needs to support a basis for the party to recover attorney’s fees (such as a prevailing party attorneys’ fees provision or a contractual indemnification provision that authorizes attorneys’ fees) or there needs to be a statute that authorizes you to recover reasonable attorneys' fees. Absent these bases, there is generally no basis to recover attorneys' fees. However, there is a vehicle under...

26 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Using Demonstrative Aids or Exhibits at Trial

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

It is common to use demonstrative aids or exhibits at trial. These are exhibits (e.g., models, diagrams, charts, photographs, etc.) that are used to help explain or illustrate testimony or other evidence. The operative word is “help” because these exhibits need to help explain the testimony and help the trier of fact in understanding the testimony. These exhibits, however, are for demonstrative purposes only and do not constitute substantive evidence. No different than evidentiary exhibits, the probative value of a demonstrative exhibit must outweigh any prejudice to the adverse party. Regarding the use of demonstrative evidence, the Florida Supreme Court stated: “Demonstrative...

21 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Know Your Standard of Appellate Review Regarding the Admissibility of Evidence

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review, Uncategorized

The standard of appellate review regarding the trial court’s admissibility of evidence is an abuse of discretion. See Vavrus v. City of Palm Beach Gardens, 927 So.2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Castaneda ex rel. Cardona v. Redlands Christian Migrant Ass’n, Inc., 884 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Naturally, a party needs to preserve this issue by objecting to the admissibility of the evidence. If a trial court sustains an objection and excludes the evidence, the party trying to introduce the evidence should make a proffer / offer of proof. On the other hand, the standard of review for the trial court’s...

15 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Benefit of Corporate Representative Depositions

Posted by David Adelstein

in Depositions, Evidence

Depositions are a routine form of discovery in civil disputes. In disputes involving businesses or governmental bodies (the “Entity”), the opposing party will take what is known as a corporate representative deposition. In a corporate representative deposition, the party taking the deposition will designate topics that they want the Entity to answer questions about. The Entity then has to duty to prepare a representative or representatives to answer questions relating to the topics. The Entity has discretion on the representative(s) it chooses to answer questions relating to the topics provided that the representative(s) it chooses is reasonably prepared. For example, assuming there...

12 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Inadmissible Subsequent Remedial Measures

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

Sometimes plaintiffs try to introduce evidence of subsequent remedial measures a defendant undertook after a defective condition caused an injury or damage to prove the existence of the defective condition and the culpability of the defendant. In other words, the plaintiff wants to show that if the remedial measure was performed to the defective condition prior to the injury or damage the injury or damage would probably not have occurred. This evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible subject to an impeachment exception (where the evidence is not admitted as substantive evidence but to impeach a witness). To this...

07 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Proximate Causation in a Negligence Action and the Granting of a Directed Verdict in a Negligence Action

Posted by David Adelstein

in Burden of Proof, Evidence

Mostly everyone has heard of the term “negligence.” Negligence actions oftentimes form the basis of personal injury claims and, in certain instances, property damage claims. (For example, this article discusses negligence actions in premise liability claims.) To prove a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: 1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, 2) the defendant breached that duty of care, 3) the defendant’s breach proximately caused damages to the plaintiff, and 4) the plaintiff suffered injuries / damages. The Florida Supreme Court in Sanders v. ERP Operating, Ltd. Partnership, 2015 WL 569041 (Fla. 2015) recently...