Filed: Jan. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 26, 2018
Summary: PER CURIAM . AFFIRMED. COHEN, C.J., and WALLIS, J., concur. EVANDER, J., concurs specially, with opinion EVANDER , J. , concurring specially. Appellant is correct that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the testimony of one of its expert witnesses. However, after consideration of the record before us, I cannot conclude that the error was harmful. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Brago, 544 So.2d 216 , 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ("After reviewing the record, we conclude that the proffer
Summary: PER CURIAM . AFFIRMED. COHEN, C.J., and WALLIS, J., concur. EVANDER, J., concurs specially, with opinion EVANDER , J. , concurring specially. Appellant is correct that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the testimony of one of its expert witnesses. However, after consideration of the record before us, I cannot conclude that the error was harmful. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Brago, 544 So.2d 216 , 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ("After reviewing the record, we conclude that the proffere..
More
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
COHEN, C.J., and WALLIS, J., concur. EVANDER, J., concurs specially, with opinion
EVANDER, J., concurring specially.
Appellant is correct that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the testimony of one of its expert witnesses. However, after consideration of the record before us, I cannot conclude that the error was harmful. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Brago, 544 So.2d 216, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ("After reviewing the record, we conclude that the proffered testimony—that there was a degeneration in Mrs. Kennedy's condition after the accident—was cumulative and therefore its exclusion was harmless.").
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.
