Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

483 So. 2d 559

483 So.2d 559

11 Fla.L.Weekly 535

Docket No. 85-554.

Rice v. Kelly

Robert RICE and Evelyn Rice, Appellants, v. Willie J. KELLY and Annie M. Kelly D/B/a Kelly's Laundromat and Old Republic Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Appellees.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 26, 1986.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-02-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[T]rial courts [should not] allow `motions in limine' to be used as unwritten and unnoticed motions for partial summary judgment or motions to dismiss.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 530 So. 2d 428 - Brock v. GD Searle & Co.

Relies on 55 So. 2d 549 - Eli Witt Cigar & Tobacco Co. v. Matatics · 417 So. 2d 1106 - Dailey v. Multicon Development, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-02-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 2016

7 state decisions

301986199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Richard G. Newhouse, of Law Offices of Richard G. Newhouse, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

¶2Ronald E. Solomon and Joseph C. Murphy, of Solomon, Murphy & Cote, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Although we believe the trial court erred in granting a motion in limine that had the effect of limiting appellants' claim for damages, we reluctantly conclude that such error was harmless in view of the jury's finding for the appellees on the issue of liability.

¶5The record reflects that the appellant, Robert Rice, Jr., fell and injured his back and head at appellees' laundromat. Sometime later, and according to Rice because of dizziness from his head injury at the laundromat, Rice fell again and further injured his back. Later, the doctors had a difficult time determining which fall caused Rice's chronic back problems. The trial *560 court refused to let Rice offer proof that his second fall was caused by the head injury suffered in the first fall. This was clearly error.

¶6In Dailey v. Multicon Development, Inc.,417 So.2d 1106 (Fla.4th DCA 1982) we condemned the use of motions in limine to summarily dismiss a portion of a claim. That is precisely what occurred here by the use of an oral motion made without notice on the first day of trial. The trial court granted the motion because there was no specific allegation in the complaint stating that the second fall was caused by the first. We are unaware of such a requirement. Cf. Eli Witt Cigar & Tobacco Co. v. Matatics,55 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1951). In addition, the record reflects that Rice claimed in deposition and other discovery taken two years before trial that the second fall was caused by the first, and that a pretrial stipulation was filed several months before trial specifically stating that Rice was claiming that the second fall was caused by the first. As in Dailey we caution trial courts not to allow "motions in limine" to be used as unwritten and unnoticed motions for partial summary judgment or motions to dismiss.

¶7ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and FEDER, RICHARD YALE, Associate Judge, concur.

/483/so2d/559 · .json · Public domain