Case Name: Louise V. ADAMO and Francis P. Adamo, Appellants, v. MANATEE CONDOMINIUM, INC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-09-05
Citations: 548 So. 2d 287
Docket Number: No. 87-786
Parties: Louise V. ADAMO and Francis P. Adamo, Appellants, v. MANATEE CONDOMINIUM, INC., Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 548
Pages: 287–291

Head Matter:
Louise V. ADAMO and Francis P. Adamo, Appellants, v. MANATEE CONDOMINIUM, INC., Appellee.
No. 87-786.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 5, 1989.
Colson, Hicks & Eidson and Alan K. Pet-rine, Miami, for appellants.
Haddad, Josephs & Jacks and David K. Markarian, Coral Gables, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs Louise and Francis Adamo from a final judgment entered upon an adverse jury verdict in a slip-and-fall negligence action. The sole point on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error by allegedly excluding, in part, the opinion testimony of the plaintiffs' expert witness. Originally, we agreed with this point and reversed for a new trial in an opinion filed by this court on November 15, 1988. On rehearing, however, we have reconsidered our prior decision and conclude that the point has not been properly preserved for appellate review.
The record reflects that the defendant Manatee Condominium Association filed a pretrial motion in limine seeking to exclude the plaintiffs' expert witness from testifying at trial; the trial court heard argument of counsel on this motion, but took no testimony. The trial court's ruling on this motion — which forms the basis for the plaintiffs' sole point on appeal — is, in our view, somewhat confusing. The trial court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part, but it is not entirely clear what testimony the trial court, in fact, excluded. This is not surprising as it is often very difficult for a trial court to delineate in a pretrial ruling, as here, exactly what testimony of a witness will be excluded and what will be allowed at trial when the witness has not testified before the court. Thereafter, the plaintiffs elected not to call the witness at trial and, instead, proffered only a deposition of the witness for appellate record purposes. It is therefore impossible to determine from this record what testimony of the plaintiffs' expert was excluded below, and, accordingly, the point has not been preserved for appellate review. Ritter's Hotel v. Sidebothom, 142 Fla. 171, 194 So. 322 (1940); Browder v. Da Costa, 91 Fla. 1, 109 So. 448 (1925); Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
The defendant's motion for rehearing is granted, this court's opinion dated November 15, 1988 is vacated, and the trial judgment under review is, in all respects,
Affirmed.
HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ., concur.
. Indeed, it is possible to read the trial court's pretrial ruling herein as virtually denying the motion in limine. (R. Ill, 114, 115). The trial court thereafter restated this ruling in its order denying the plaintiffs' motion for new trial:
"This Court made no ruling prohibiting Plaintiffs from having Plaintiffs' expert testify as to violations of applicable construction and engineering standards. Plaintiffs' expert was permitted to testify as to violations of any kind as related to the compilation of codes and requirements considered in general by engineers and architects in the design and construction of buildings."