Case Name: DAHARAN WELL TEXACO OIL CO., Appellant, v. Warren McFADDEN, Jr., and Yolanda McFadden, his wife, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-09-16
Citations: 717 So. 2d 162
Docket Number: No. 97-1540
Parties: DAHARAN WELL TEXACO OIL CO., Appellant, v. Warren McFADDEN, Jr., and Yolanda McFadden, his wife, Appellee.
Judges: Before COPE, GERSTEN and SHEVIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 717
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
DAHARAN WELL TEXACO OIL CO., Appellant, v. Warren McFADDEN, Jr., and Yolanda McFadden, his wife, Appellee.
No. 97-1540.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 16, 1998.
Ross & Berger; Lauri Waldman Ross and Eileen L. Tilghman, Miami, for appellant.
Brent L. Probinsky, Homestead; Cooper & Wolfe and Marc Cooper and Maureen E. Lefebvre, Miami, for appellee.
Before COPE, GERSTEN and SHEVIN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, the defendant in a slip and fall action, appeals a jury verdict in favor of the appellee, plaintiff in that action. We affirm.
As its first, issue defendant claims that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence a photograph made from a video tape plaintiff made of the location shortly after his fall. Defendant argues that the photograph contained evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken after the fall and should have been excluded.
We disagree. At a minimum, the disputed photograph was properly admitted under the impeachment exception to the subsequent remedial measures rule. See Morowitz v. Vistaview Apartments, Ltd., 613 So.2d 493, 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); § 90.407, Fla. Stat. (1997). We need not consider plaintiffs other theories of admissibility. Assuming for present purposes that the photograph should not have been admitted during the plaintiffs ease in chief, under the circumstances of this case we conclude that the error was harmless.
We likewise find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination to enforce, and interpretation of, the parties' pretrial agreement in which plaintiff agreed to drop certain claims and defendant agreed not to make reference to plaintiffs prior injuries. Even if any part of the ruling could be said to be erroneous, we do not see how defendant suffered any harm thereby.
Affirmed.