This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: rest, by the finding of drug paraphernalia in his home (syringes and
empty capsules), and by his incompetency from drug use and psychiatric problems
continuing for several months after his arrest. The clear import of this evidence was that
Tallahassee Furniture failed in its duty to exercise a reasonable degree of supervision and
control over its service employees, a conclusion supported somewhat by evidence [**25]
that appellant's dispatcher, who was Turner's supervisor and in charge of the daily
assignment of deliveries to the homes of customers, was not aware that Turner had been
given the personal use of a Tallahassee Furniture truck to drive home and for use during
his off hours, on weekends, and on holidays. Significantly, no coemployee of Turner at
Tallahassee Furniture serving in the capacity as a driver or deliveryman with Turner was
called to testify as to Turner's activities on the job. Considering the evidence in its
entirety, we are not of the view that it was error to submit the issue of negligent retention
for resolution by the jury.
In appellant's argument on the negligent retention issue and in other parts of its brief,
appellant contends that the evidence pertaining to Turner's drug use (other than the track
marks on his arms) was inadmissible hearsay, in that it was based upon the testimony of
Harrison's expert witness, Professor James White, who related statements made to him by
Turner during a prison interview and who also relied upon an affidavit from Turner's wife
regarding Turner's drug use. Appellant relies upon the rule that an expert witness cannot
serve merely as [**26] a conduit for the presentation of inadmissible evidence, citing 3M Corp. v. Brown, 475 So.2d 994, 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and Department of
Corrections v. Williams, 549 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
We find this reliance misplaced. As appellee points out, hearsay evidence not objected to
becomes part of the evidence in the case and is usable as proof just as any other evidence,
limited only by its rational, persuasive power. Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Department of
Transportation, 500 So.2d 212, 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1...
View Full Document
- Spring '08