Valleycrest Landscape Maintenance, Inc. and ARI Fleet LT v. Samantha M. Justyn

39 Pages·2016·0.4 MB·English

by  John Mills

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 1D15-2962

VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE, INC. and ARI
FLEET LT,
Appellants,
v. L.T. Case No. 16-2012-CA-010176-XX

SAMANTHA M. JUSTYN,
Appellee.
______________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT,
FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA
ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEE

CREED & GOWDY, P.A.

Thomas A. Burns (Of Counsel)
Fla. Bar No. 0012535
[email protected]
Bryan S. Gowdy
Florida Bar No. 0176631
[email protected]
Jessie L. Harrell
Florida Bar No. 0502812
[email protected]
[email protected]
865 May Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32204
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Appellee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CITATIONS ................................................................................................. iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ................................................................ 1
Statement of the Case ...................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Facts ...................................................................................... 2
A. Marvin Golden ....................................................................................... 2
B. Dr. Jeremy Cummings ........................................................................... 3
C. Dr. Samantha Justyn ............................................................................. 4
D. Matthew Stevens .................................................................................... 7
E. Linda Weseman ...................................................................................... 7
F. Von Zimmerman .................................................................................... 8
G. CSO Robert Jackson .............................................................................. 8
H. The Motion in Limine ........................................................................... 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................................... 12
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 13
I. Issue 1: Did the trial court abuse its discretion and cause
harmful error when it denied a motion in limine on the basis
that a “community service officer” did not qualify as a “law
enforcement officer”? ...................................................................................... 13

Standard of Review ......................................................................................... 14

Merits ................................................................................................................ 15
i
A. The trial court correctly interpreted section
316.066(5), Florida Statutes (2010). .............................................. 15
1. Under the plain language of the statute, a
community service officer is not a "law
enforcement officer." ................................................................ 16
2. Even if the statute were ambiguous, a community
service officer still is not a "law enforcement
officer." ..................................................................................... 21
B. Appellants failed to demonstrate Mr. Golden made his
statements to CSO Jackson "for the purpose of
completing a crash report." ............................................................ 24
C. Any error was harmless. ................................................................. 26
II. Issue 2: Did the trial court abuse its discretion and cause
harmful error when it prevented Appellants from cross-
examining an expert outside her area of expertise? ................................. 27
Standard of Review .................................................................................. 27
Merits ........................................................................................................ 28
A. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it
limited Appellants’ cross-examination. ......................................... 28
B. Any abuse of discretion in limiting Appellants’ cross-
examination was harmless.............................................................. 29
C. Appellants failed to preserve the alleged error because
they did not proffer what Ms. Weseman’s testimony
would have been. ............................................................................ 31
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 31
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ....................................................................................... 32
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................................. 33
ii
TABLE OF CITATIONS
CASES
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (1979) .......................26
Barclay v. Rivero, 388 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) ..........................................31
Bass v. State, 147 So. 3d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ............................................... 14

Borden v. E.-European Ins. Co., 921 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2006) .................................. 14

City of Hollywood v. Litteral, 446 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)......... 12, 19, 20
Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999) ..........25
Dep’ of Hwy. Safety & Motor Veh. v. Corbin, 527 So. 2d 868
(Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ......................................................................................24
Edwards v. Shanley, 580 Fed. App’x 816 (11th Cir. 2014).....................................30
Finney v. State, 660 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1995) .............................................................31
First Union Nat. Bank v. Turney, 824 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) .................25
Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Serv. v. McKim, 869 So. 2d 760
(Fla. 1st DCA 2004) .....................................................................................22

Geralds v. State, 674 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1996) .............................................................27
Golf Channel v. Jenkins, 752 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2000) ..............................................17
Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 2013) ....................................................28
Green v. State, 604 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1992) ..............................................................18
Husky Indus., Inc. v. Black, 434 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ..........................27
Kelly v. Kinsey, 362 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) .............................................28
Pensacola Beach Pier, Inc. v. King, 66 So. 3d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ...............22
iii
Poland v. Zaccheo, 82 So. 3d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) .........................................29
Rollins v. Pizzarelli, 761 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2000) ........................................ 16, 18, 20
Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014)
reh’g denied (Mar. 26, 2015) ................................................................. 26, 30

State v. Binion, 637 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) .............................................25
State v. Burris, 875 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2004) .............................................................16
State v. Sousa, 903 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 2005) ..............................................................21
Stevens v. Duke, 42 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1949) .............................................................23
Thrivent Fin. for Lutherans v. State, Dept. of Fin. Serv., 145 So. 3d 178
(Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ......................................................................................23

Van Pelt v. Hilliard, 78 So. 693 (Fla. 1918) ............................................................17
STATUTES AND RULES
§ 90.612, Fla. Stat. (2015) ........................................................................................28
§ 112.531, Fla. Stat. (1979) ............................................................................... 19, 20
§ 316.066(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010) ............................................................................23
§ 316.066(5), Fla. Stat. (2010). ........................................................................ passim
§ 316.066(6), Fla. Stat. (2010) ..........................................................................passim
§ 316.640(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010) ................................................................ 21, 22, 23
§ 943.10(1), Fla. Stat. (2010) ............................................................................passim
Ch. 89-271, § 2, Laws of Fla ................................................................................... 19
Ch. 2010-223, §2, Laws of Fla. ............................................................................... 15
iv
Ch. 2011-66, § 7, Laws of Fla. ................................................................................ 15
OTHER AUTHORITIES

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014) ...................................................... 18, 20
Fla. S. Comm. On Transp., Open government Sunset Review
Accident Reports 1 (1989) (available at Fla. Dep’t of State, Fla.
State Archives, Tallahassee, Fla.) .................................................................. 19

Operational Order 15.15.01(III)(A) ................................................................... 19, 22

v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Appellants’ statement of the case and facts is inadequate and incomplete,
and thus Appellee is compelled to restate the case and facts in their entirety.
Statement of the Case
Appellee, Dr. Samantha Justyn, sued Appellants, ValleyCrest Landscape
Maintenance, Inc. and ARI Fleet LT, for negligence. (R. 1-18.) Dr. Justyn alleged
Appellants were vicariously liable when Marvin Golden negligently ran her over
with a Ford F-250 and caused serious personal injuries.1 (R. 1-18.) ValleyCrest
Landscape admitted it employed Mr. Golden as its driver, but denied he was
negligent. (R. 34.) ARI Fleet LT denied it was the beneficial owner of the Ford F-
250 or that Mr. Golden drove it with its knowledge and consent. (R. 36.)
Before trial, Appellants filed a motion in limine to prevent introduction of
one aspect of Community Service Officer (“CSO”) Robert Jackson’s expected
testimony. (R. 1105-08.) Specifically, CSO Jackson was expected to testify that
Mr. Golden had told him he saw Dr. Justyn as he approached the intersection, but
thought he could clear her during his righthand turn. (R. 1105-08.) Dr. Justyn
opposed the motion (R. 1125-55), and Appellants replied (R. 1156-69). After
hearing argument, the trial court orally denied the motion. (Tr. 7-26, 52-63.)

1 Before trial, Dr. Justyn dismissed her claims against Mr. Golden and ValleyCrest
Golf Course Maintenance, Inc. without prejudice. (R. 24-25, 1093-94.)
1
The case was tried to a jury over eight days. (Tr. 1-1781.) During the trial,
Appellants attempted to goad Linda Weseman, Dr. Justyn’s biomechanical
engineering and accident reconstruction expert, into testifying outside her area of
expertise about bicycle safety. (Tr. 1098-99.) Dr. Justyn’s objection on that basis
was sustained. (Tr. 1099.) After only ninety minutes of deliberations, the jury
rendered a verdict in favor of Dr. Justyn, found Appellants 100 percent liable, and
awarded $1,728,500 in damages. (Tr. 1776-77.) Appellants appealed. (R. 1531-
662.)
Statement of the Facts
Appellants imply the trial turned solely on the factual issue whether Dr.
Justyn or Mr. Golden arrived at the intersection first. (See Br. at 4-5, 26-27.) But
that was merely a subsidiary issue. In reality, the central question at trial concerned
whether (1) Dr. Justyn stopped her bicycle in Mr. Golden’s blind spot, or (2) Mr.
Golden either saw or should have seen Dr. Justyn when he made his righthand
turn. In any event, many witnesses testified, but only the following witnesses
testified about the accident itself.
A. Marvin Golden
Marvin Golden had been driving trucks in the landscaping business for over
15 years. (Tr. 1251.) He was familiar with his F-250 truck. (Tr. 1252.) Mr. Golden
2
admitted he was trained to adjust the F-250 truck’s planar and convex mirrors so it
had no blind spots:
Q. Okay. So you’re telling us you didn’t have a blind spot?
A. No, sir, I didn’t have a blind spot. I seen everything.
Q. You’re not saying you missed this bicyclist because of a blind
spot?
A. Exactly.
(Tr. 1264-65.) Furthermore, he admitted he was looking at the mirrors and out the
window the entire time he was making the right-hand turn. (Tr. 1268; see also Tr.
1287 (“My attention was mainly on the right side, using my mirrors.”)). Finally,
Mr. Golden admitted that if Dr. Justyn had been between his truck and the
pedestrian (i.e., Matthew Stevens), he definitely “would have seen her.” (Tr. 1273.)
Mr. Golden simply testified he never saw Dr. Justyn. (Tr. 1256.)
B. Dr. Jeremy Cummings
Dr. Jeremy Cummings was a defense biomedical engineer. (Tr. 947.) Dr.
Cummings reconstructed the accident and opined, contrary to Mr. Golden’s
admissions, that Dr. Justyn was most likely in Mr. Golden’s blind spot. (Tr. 946-
82.) But on cross-examination, Dr. Cummings admitted that, if Mr. Golden had
seen Dr. Justyn, then he was negligent. (Tr. 985-86, 1008-09.) He also admitted
that, if Dr. Justyn had been wearing a hot pink tank top (which, in fact, she was
wearing (Tr. 483-84)), then she would have been more visible. (Tr. 1002.)
3
C. Dr. Samantha Justyn
Dr. Samantha Justyn testified she was an experienced cyclist. (Tr. 483.) On
the day of the accident, she was wearing a hot pink tank top and teal shorts. (Tr.
483-84.) She explained how she came to the stoplight:
Q. Okay. And can you tell us where you pulled up to when
you—or what you did do when you approached this intersection?
A. Well, I came to a stoplight, so as I approached I stopped and
put my foot up on the curb.
Q. Okay. And what happened after you stopped and put your
foot up on the curb?
A. Well, probably about five or ten seconds later, a landscaping
truck pulled up next to me.
Q. Okay. And did you look to see the truck when it pulled up
beside you?
A. I did briefly.
Q. And what did you see?
A. That it was loaded up with workers.
Q. And what did you do then?
A. I looked straight ahead again to avoid making any eye
contact with them.
. . . .
Q. Okay. And so do you recall how long you had to wait there
before the lights changed?
A. Probably at least 30 seconds.
4