Filed: Nov. 04, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 4, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. _ No. 3D14-989 Lower Tribunal No. 10-53225 _ Anthony Maniglia, Appellant, vs. Daniel Carpenter, Appellee. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami Dade County, Sara I. Zabel, Judge. Kubicki Draper and Caryn L. Bellus and Bretton C. Albrecht, for appellant. David B. Pakula (Southwest Ranches); Ellis, Ged & Bodden (Boca Raton), for appellee. Before WEL
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 4, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. _ No. 3D14-989 Lower Tribunal No. 10-53225 _ Anthony Maniglia, Appellant, vs. Daniel Carpenter, Appellee. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami Dade County, Sara I. Zabel, Judge. Kubicki Draper and Caryn L. Bellus and Bretton C. Albrecht, for appellant. David B. Pakula (Southwest Ranches); Ellis, Ged & Bodden (Boca Raton), for appellee. Before WELL..
More
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed November 4, 2015.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D14-989
Lower Tribunal No. 10-53225
________________
Anthony Maniglia,
Appellant,
vs.
Daniel Carpenter,
Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami Dade County, Sara I. Zabel,
Judge.
Kubicki Draper and Caryn L. Bellus and Bretton C. Albrecht, for appellant.
David B. Pakula (Southwest Ranches); Ellis, Ged & Bodden (Boca Raton),
for appellee.
Before WELLS, SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
SALTER, J.
Anthony Maniglia appeals a final judgment awarding damages to Daniel
Carpenter following a September 2009 automobile collision. Maniglia seeks a
reversal and remand for a new trial based on the trial court’s exclusion of evidence
relating to an incident involving Carpenter that occurred a month after the
accident. We conclude that the proffered evidence of the incident was
significantly probative and outweighed any alleged prejudice. Applying the test
for harmless error in a civil case, see Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr.,
160 So. 3d
1251 (Fla. 2014), we conclude that Carpenter has failed to prove that the error did
not contribute to the verdict in his favor. We thus reverse and remand for a new
trial.
The Accident and Aftermath
In September 2009, automobiles driven by Maniglia and Carpenter collided
while Maniglia was changing lanes on I-95 at night. The collision damaged the
right rear area of Maniglia’s vehicle and the left front of Carpenter’s auto.
Maniglia and his brother (a passenger in Maniglia’s vehicle) maintained that it was
only a bump; Carpenter maintained that it was a severe sideswiping.
The day after the accident Carpenter visited Dr. Napoli, a chiropractor, and
complained about right-side neck and back pain. Dr. Napoli later testified that x-
rays taken that day showed no signs of acute injury, that they revealed disc
2
narrowing (which he described as “normal wear and tear”), and that he placed no
work restrictions on Carpenter.
The Golf Cart Incident
In pretrial discovery in his personal injury suit against Maniglia, Carpenter
initially denied that he had been involved in any subsequent accidents. Later
investigation revealed, however, that Carpenter was involved in an unrelated
accident and physical altercation less than a month after the car accident involving
Maniglia. In October 2009, Carpenter was playing in a golf tournament. In the
course of the tournament, Carpenter drove a golf cart onto a public road, ran a red
light, and collided with a car. At impact, Carpenter fell from the golf cart and onto
the street.
Carpenter got into a physical altercation with the police at the scene, which
included fighting, kicking, and wrestling on the ground. There was evidence that
Carpenter was intoxicated; that he did not have permission to use the golf cart; that
he yelled profanity at the police and kicked both feet against the rear passenger
window of the police car; and that he was arrested on the scene for battery on a law
enforcement officer.
Additional evidence proffered by Maniglia at trial would have shown that
Carpenter failed to disclose the golf cart incident and altercation to Dr. Napoli
when he returned to Dr. Napoli less than two weeks later. Maniglia also proffered
3
evidence that the magnetic resonance images (MRIs) of Carpenter, relied upon by
Carpenter’s surgeon when he recommended surgery, were not taken until after the
golf cart incident.
The Motion in Limine and the Evidence at Trial
Carpenter moved before trial to exclude all evidence relating to the October
2009 golf cart incident on the grounds that its prejudicial effect substantially
outweighed its probative value under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2015).
Carpenter argued that irrelevant, but highly prejudicial facts—such as the
intoxication, profanity, and struggle with law enforcement personnel—were too
interwoven with any facts relating to the golf cart collision and Carpenter’s fall
from the cart to the pavement to permit a “sanitized version” to be allowed. The
trial court granted the motion.
At trial, however, the court allowed the jury to hear that Carpenter played in
the golf tournament less than a month after the accident with Maniglia, and that
Carpenter had played “bumper cars” with the golf cart at the first tee. The court
also allowed limited evidence that Carpenter was intoxicated at the golf
tournament, which Carpenter had relied on to explain his ability to play golf
following his alleged injuries.
The jury did not hear the complete details of the golf cart incident, however,
including Carpenter’s crash with an automobile, fall onto the pavement, and
4
struggle with law enforcement personnel. The jury also did not hear proffered
evidence that Carpenter failed to tell his chiropractor, Dr. Napoli, about the golf
cart incident and struggle when Carpenter visited him less than two weeks after
those events occurred.
The jury returned a verdict awarding Carpenter $182,429.39. The court
entered a final judgment in the case. Maniglia’s motion for a new trial was denied,
and this appeal followed.
Analysis
We have described the admissibility of “prejudicial” facts in these terms:
“[m]ost evidence that is admitted will be prejudicial or damaging to
the party against whom it is offered.” Charles W. Ehrhardt, [Florida
Evidence § 403.1 (2007)] at 183. The question under the statute is not
prejudice but instead, unfair prejudice: whether the “probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” § 90.403,
Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis added).
State v. Williams,
992 So. 2d 330, 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
In the present case, the golf cart incident included facts that addressed both
Carpenter’s credibility and his proof of causation. The possibility of “unfair”
prejudice did not “substantially” outweigh the probative value of that evidence.
Had the motion been denied and the proffered evidence introduced, Carpenter’s
failure to mention the recent golf cart incident to his chiropractor may have
affected the jury’s evaluation of Carpenter’s credibility, and the particulars of his
fall and struggle with police would have been an adequate basis for jury
5
instructions on intervening causes and subsequent injuries. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr.
(Civil) 401.12(c), 505.5(b).
As the beneficiary of this erroneous exclusion of admissible evidence,
Carpenter is required “to prove that the error complained of did not contribute to
the verdict,” alternatively described by the Supreme Court of Florida as proof that
“there is no reasonable possibility that the error complained of contributed to the
verdict.”
Special, 160 So. 3d at 1265. Carpenter and the record before us have not
satisfied this requirement, with the result that the final judgment and order denying
new trial must be reversed.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
6