50 Fla. L. Weekly D2046a SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a Security First Florida, Appellant, v. ARTIE M. ECHAVARRIA and ARGIRO ECHAVARRIA, Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D2024-1476. L.T. Case No. 2020-030510-CICI. September 12, 2025. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. Mary G. Jolley, Judge. Counsel: Mark D. Tinker and Brandon J. Tyler, Read More »
Articles
Wrongful death — Counties — Accident in which police car driven by police officer struck and killed decedent — Mistrial — Courtroom conduct — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying county’s motion and renewed motions for mistrial directed at cumulative effect of courtroom conduct of personal representative, who was decedent’s wife, and her family members during first two days of six-day jury trial — Transcript plainly reflects that county made no contemporaneous objection to wife’s crying, mother-in-law’s cellphone use, and wife’s clothing, and conduct, whether viewed individually or collectively, did not constitute fundamental error — With respect to wife’s embracing and hugging her family, which was the only objected-to-incident, defendant failed to meet burden to establish that verdict was wholly unsupported by evidence or was result of passion, prejudice, or other improper motive
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2037a MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Appellant, v. JEISHY MARIANA ZERPA MALPICA, etc., Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D24-1472. L.T. Case No. 21-21127-CA-01. September 10, 2025. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge. Counsel: Geraldine Bonzon-Keenan, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Nicole Ramos-Barreau, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant. Heise Suarez Read More »
Torts — Automobile accident — Damages — Past medical expenses — Setoff — Collateral sources — Trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion to offset jury’s award with discounts that plaintiff’s insurer had negotiated with her out-of-state medical providers and the full PIP benefits that plaintiff allegedly received for an MRI appointment she did not attend — Appellate court may infer from jury’s lump-sum award which past medical expenses were and were not included where a direct line can be drawn to the awarded expenses from the evidence and specific arguments presented at the trial — Section 768.76(1)’s requirement that damages award be reduced by the “total of all amounts” from PIP or health insurers must be read in context of the damages that jury has awarded “for losses sustained” — In instant case, jury necessarily determined that defendant’s negligence did not cause plaintiff to “sustain” any losses for the out-of-state medical provider expenses or for the MRI appointment, and it did not award damages for them — Because plaintiff did not recover setoff amounts as damages, it was error to reduce plaintiff’s damages by those amounts
50 Fla. L. Weekly D1985a ELIZABETH D. BUCHMAN, Appellant, v. JOHN F. McDONALD, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2024-1121. September 5, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Lindsay M. Alvarez, Judge. Counsel: Michael E. Beam of Doran, Beam & Farrell, P.A., New Port Richey, for Appellant. Drew W. Peeler and Kevin D. Read More »
Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Damages — Evidence — Treating physician — New opinion — Trial court erred by excluding any testimony from plaintiff’s treating physician regarding plaintiff’s need for future medical treatment and the anticipated cost of treatment based on determination that such testimony would be in violation of Binger v. King Pest Control because physician’s medical reports did not include recommendations for future treatment and testimony was based on other physician’s medical records — A treating physician may offer opinions based on treatment rendered and on review of relevant records — Physician did not change his opinion, but rather formed it based on his examinations of plaintiff as well as his review of plaintiff prior to treatment — Moreover, physician’s observations and recommendations were disclosed to defendant pre-trial, thereby limiting possibility of surprise and substantial prejudice to defendant — Any surprise was self-inflicted where physician was timely disclosed as a hybrid witness on causation and damages, yet defendant waited until five days before trial to depose him — Exclusion of physician’s testimony of observations and diagnoses reached subsequent to his physical examination of plaintiff materially prejudiced plaintiff’s ability to prove a central element of damages — Trial court further erred by finding that physician’s testimony regarding future medical expenses was inadmissible because physician could not state with certainty that plaintiff would undergo recommended treatments — Future medical expenses are recoverable when they are “reasonably certain” to be incurred — Directed verdict — Trial court erred in granting directed verdicts against plaintiff on her claims for damages from two prior surgeries and future pain and suffering where plaintiff’s expert linked plaintiff’s fall to the surgeries with reasonable degree of medical certainty and his opinion was corroborated by other evidence — Remand for new trial
50 Fla. L. Weekly D1496a YANEIRA E. APONTE, Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2023-2417. July 9, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Janet Carney Croom, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312020CA000638. Counsel: Chad A. Barr of Chad Barr Law, Altamonte Springs, for Read More »
Torts — Premises liability — Restaurants — Slip and fall — Transitory foreign substance — Knowledge of dangerous condition — Directed verdict — Trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion for directed verdict following jury verdict assigning no negligence to plaintiff and awarding her damages for past and future medical expenses and pain and suffering — Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of restaurant’s constructive notice of dangerous condition where testimony regarding color and condition of water and the amount of foot traffic in the area provided evidence that water had been present on floor long enough for restaurant to discover it, and expert testimony and defendant’s admissions established that condensate in the area of the fall was a reoccurring, foreseeable condition — New trial — Argument — No abuse of discretion in alternatively granting defendant’s motion for new trial based plaintiff’s counsel’s act of reading an excerpt from the restaurant manager’s deposition that had not been introduced into evidence because the parties had agreed to exclude it, telling the jury that a doctor had testified as to the cost of knee surgery despite plaintiff’s withdrawal of her claim for future medical expenses and lack of any trial evidence as to the cost, and suggesting that the restaurant might have withheld or destroyed evidence
50 Fla. L. Weekly D1494a BARBARA LOREN, Appellant, v. ONCE UPON A TIME GROUP, CORP., Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2023-3154. July 9, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Gregory M. Keyser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502019CA011719. Counsel: Sam Mandelbaum and Annabel C. Majewski of Wasson & Read More »