From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ellis v. Weisbrot

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 6, 1989
550 So. 2d 15 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Summary

In Ellis v. Weisbrot, 550 So.2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the court held that a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of a defendant came within section 768.041.

Summary of this case from Rowe v. Leichter

Opinion

No. 88-1736.

July 11, 1989. Rehearing Denied November 6, 1989.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Michael H. Salmon, J.

Deutsch Blumberg, P.A., James C. Blecke, Miami, for appellant.

Walton Lantaff Schroeder Carson and G. Bart Billbrough and Geoffrey B. Marks, Miami, for appellee.

Before NESBITT, JORGENSON and LEVY, JJ.


Darryl Ellis appeals from a final judgment entered on a jury verdict finding no negligence in a dental malpractice action. For the following reason, we reverse.

Ellis sued Jefferson Stores, Inc., and Drs. Kirsner and Weisbrot for dental malpractice. On the morning of trial, Ellis voluntarily dismissed Dr. Kirsner in exchange for a waiver of costs and fees. Although the record is not clear on this point, Ellis states on appeal that the dismissal was with prejudice. During cross-examination of Dr. Kirsner, counsel for Dr. Weisbrot asked the following question over Ellis's objection: "Dr. Kirsner, isn't it true you were just dismissed as a defendant from this case yesterday by the plaintiff?" Dr. Kirsner answered, "That is correct." Ellis moved for a mistrial; the trial court later denied his motion. The following day, during continuing cross-examination of Dr. Kirsner, Dr. Weisbrot's attorney, over Ellis's repeated objections, continually referred to Dr. Kirsner's former status as a defendant in the lawsuit.

The trial court erred in admitting evidence of Dr. Kirsner's prior status as a defendant in the lawsuit and dismissal of the claim against him. "The fact of such a release or covenant not to sue, or that any defendant has been dismissed by order of the court shall not be made known to the jury." § 768.041, Florida Statutes (1987). Section 768.041 prohibits informing the jury that a witness was a prior defendant, whether the party was dismissed by release or settlement or by court order. Ashby Div. of Consol. Aluminum v. Dobkin, 458 So.2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Green v. Ed Ricke Sons, Inc., 438 So.2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), approved, 468 So.2d 908 (Fla. 1985); Webb v. Priest, 413 So.2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); City of Coral Gables v. Jordan, 186 So.2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA), aff'd, 191 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1966). A dismissal with prejudice is tantamount to a release. Eason v. Lau, 369 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 1979).

Admission of such testimony, even to attack the former defendant's credibility, is clear error and requires reversal. Ashby, 458 So.2d at 337; City of Coral Gables, 186 So.2d at 63.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.


Summaries of

Ellis v. Weisbrot

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 6, 1989
550 So. 2d 15 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

In Ellis v. Weisbrot, 550 So.2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the court held that a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of a defendant came within section 768.041.

Summary of this case from Rowe v. Leichter

In Ellis, the defendant agreed to pay costs and fees in exchange for the dismissal, so that the dismissal could be said to be part of an agreed settlement.

Summary of this case from Rowe v. Leichter
Case details for

Ellis v. Weisbrot

Case Details

Full title:DARRYL ELLIS, APPELLANT, v. BRUCE WEISBROT, D.D.S., APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Nov 6, 1989

Citations

550 So. 2d 15 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing Cases

Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Construction

PER CURIAM. We have for review the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Saleeby v. Rocky Elson…

Rowe v. Leichter

Cenvill Communities, Inc. v. Patti, 458 So.2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), pet. for rev. denied, 467 So.2d 1000…