Stout v. Cassity
In a tenant's personal injury suit after a ceiling collapsed on her, the Second District reversed a defense verdict, holding the trial court abused its discretion by limiting the tenant's construction expert's testimony to the four corners of a two-page pre-arbitration 'compendium' when the landlord's claimed surprise was self-inflicted by failing to depose the expert or properly serve expert discovery. The court also held that the trial court erred in summarily denying a postverdict juror interview where a seated juror admitted after the verdict that she had stayed silent when repeatedly asked about landlord/property-management experience.
Key facts
- Tenant sued landlord for personal injuries after a ceiling collapsed on her in the rented premises.
- At trial, the trial court excluded the tenant's construction expert's testimony based on a two-page pre-arbitration compendium, and the landlord claimed surprise despite having failed to depose the expert or properly serve expert discovery.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
A useful decision for plaintiffs' and defense trial counsel on two fronts: it reinforces the Dos Santos/Aponte line that a party who sleeps on expert discovery cannot later obtain exclusion for 'surprise,' and it… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.