From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Karch v. MacKay

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Aug 21, 1984
453 So. 2d 452 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Summary

In Karch v. MacKay, 453 So.2d 452, 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), this court determined that "absent very unusual circumstances, statements obtained by an employer regarding an accident in anticipation of litigation are work product and not subject to adversarial discovery."

Summary of this case from Honey Transport, Inc. v. Ruiz

Opinion

No. 84-250.

July 11, 1984. Rehearing Denied August 21, 1984.

Petition from the Circuit Court, Martin County, Rupert Jasen Smith, J.

Moss, Henderson Lloyd, P.A., Vero Beach, and Marjorie Gadarian Graham of Jones Foster, P.A., West Palm Beach, for petitioners.

Robert Sussman, and Edward A. Perse of Horton, Perse Ginsberg, Miami, for respondents.


By petition for writ of common law certiorari, Karch and Florida Light Company seek quashal of discovery orders requiring the production of statements which Karch gave to his employer, Florida Power Light, regarding Karch's involvement in an automobile accident. The respondent, Darlene Marie MacKay, is one of the persons injured in said accident and one of the plaintiffs in pending litigation arising therefrom.

The courts of this state have been consistent since Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), in holding that, absent very unusual circumstances, statements obtained by an employer regarding an accident in anticipation of litigation are work product and not subject to adversarial discovery. Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1970); Florida Power Light Co. v. Limeburner, 390 So.2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The reports sought in this case appear to fall neatly within the protected category and allowance of their discovery constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. Accordingly, the petition for writ of common law certiorari is granted and those parts of the orders under review that require petitioners to produce statements that Karch gave to Florida Power Light Company regarding the accident are quashed.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and BERANEK, J., concur.


Summaries of

Karch v. MacKay

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Aug 21, 1984
453 So. 2d 452 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

In Karch v. MacKay, 453 So.2d 452, 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), this court determined that "absent very unusual circumstances, statements obtained by an employer regarding an accident in anticipation of litigation are work product and not subject to adversarial discovery."

Summary of this case from Honey Transport, Inc. v. Ruiz
Case details for

Karch v. MacKay

Case Details

Full title:OTTO JULIUS KARCH AND FLORIDA POWER LIGHT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Aug 21, 1984

Citations

453 So. 2d 452 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gonyea

We are not persuaded by this argument and hold that the statements of witnesses taken by Winn-Dixie's…

Waste Management v. Southern Bell

Superficially, on our limited record, much of the requested material does appear to include work product.…