Caballero-Quinones v. Wilder
Fla. 6th DCA (2026) – Appellate Law
Facts
Defendant Deputy Harvey proceeded through an intersection with lights and sirens engaged and crashed into Defendant Kyle Wilder which caused Wilder’s vehicle to crash into Plaintiff’s stopped vehicle. Both Harvey and Wilder blamed the other for the crash. Multiple investigations by the Sherriff’s office concluded Harvey was at-fault although Harvey personally denied any fault. The Sherriff’s Office successfully excluded its own post-accident conclusions from trial via a number of arguments including accident-report privilege, subsequent remedial measures, and the traffic citation privilege. Notably, although the Sherrif’s Office also argued 403 balancing to the trial court, the trial court never ruled on 403 balancing. Following a defense verdict for Deputy Harvey, Plaintiff appealed the exclusion of the Sheriff’s office’s investigation and conclusions.
Holding
Reversed and remanded. The Sherriff’s Office’s investigation and conclusions did not involve the accident-report privilege, subsequent remedial measures, or the traffic citation privilege, and, therefore, the trial court erred by excluding the post-accident investigation and conclusions on those bases. As to 403 balancing, however, remanded for the trial court to rule as a matter of first impression – and refusing to entertain on appeal under Tipsy Coachman.
Note
Conflict certified as to whether an appellate court may assess 403 balancing as a matter of first impression on appeal.
Note #2
Dissent agreed that the bases for exclusion by the trial court were erroneous but would still affirm because the post-accident investigation and conclusions were irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial and could be properly assessed as a matter of first impression on appeal.
Dolan v. Negron
Fla. 4th DCA (2026) – Appellate Law
Facts
A car wreck case proceeded to trial. In short sum, the jury returned a verdict awarding past and future meds and past and future lost wages with the past lost wages and future damages all exceeding those boarded by Plaintiff at trial, but the jury also found no permanency. Further, even though the jury awarded economic damages only (in light of no permanency), the jury awarded exactly $1 million. Defendant unsuccessfully moved for a remittitur to reduce the economic damage awards to those supported by the evidence and then appealed. Plaintiff cross-appealed arguing that a new trial should be awarded on all matters if reversed as the verdict was a clear compromise and the future awards were inconsistent with a no permanency determination.
Holding
Reversed and remanded for new trial on all damages including permanency. As to the first issue, a jury cannot award economic damages not based on competent and substantial evidence, so the trial court erred by failing to grant a remittitur. But second, under the circumstances, the only workable remedy on remand is a new trial on all damages and permanency in light of all the inconsistencies and clear compromises
Johnson v. Miami Dade County
11th Cir. (2026) – Appellate Law
Facts
Plaintiff brought both racial discrimination and retaliation claims. The trial court granted summary final judgment for Defendant, and Plaintiff appealed.
Holding
Affirmed. Fairly run of the mill case, but the 11th Circuit held that, even assuming arguendo Plaintiff established a prima facie case, Defendant was able to establish a legitimate, non-discriminatory or retaliatory explanation for Plaintiff’s termination which Plaintiff was then unable to rebut by demonstrating the explanation was pretextual (and applying both McDonnell-Douglas and the “convincing mosaic” framework for the analysis).
Our team is available to discuss the topics written here and ready to provide additional information contained in this article. Contact us for more information.
