Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 4, 2015 by admin

Torts — Automobile accident — Evidence — Trial court abused discretion in excluding testimony of expert biomedical engineer

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2654aTop of Form

Torts
— Automobile accident — Evidence — Trial court abused discretion in excluding
testimony of expert biomedical engineer where proffered testimony was relevant
to disputed issues concerning velocity and directional forces involved in
accident, and thus, to issue of causation

JOHN LEE TAYLOR, Appellant, v. SEKETA CULVER, Appellee. 1st
District. Case No. 1D14-4444. Opinion filed December 1, 2015. An appeal from
the Circuit Court for Duval County. Hugh A. Carithers, Judge. Counsel: Angela
C. Flowers of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Ocala, for Appellant. Jessie L. Harrell of
Creed & Gowdy, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

(SWANSON, J.) In this personal injury action arising from a
low-impact automobile collision, Appellant first asserts the trial court erred
in excluding the testimony of his expert biomedical engineer where the
testimony was relevant to material issues of fact and to refute the testimony
of Appellee’s own biomedical engineering expert. Secondly, Appellant argues a
new trial is required due to improper argument during opening and closing
arguments. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the
testimony of Appellant’s expert witness in biomedical engineering. See Council
v. State
, 98 So. 3d 115, 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). This determination
obviates the need to address Point II.

A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert
testimony is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Angrand v. Key,
657 So. 2d 1146, 1148 (Fla. 1995). The boundaries of a trial court’s discretion
to admit or exclude evidence are confined by Florida’s evidence code and controlling
case law. Council, 98 So. 3d at 117. A fundamental cornerstone for
analysis is that all relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by
law. § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2014). While relevant evidence may be inadmissible
where its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, see
section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2014), where relevant evidence is not
unfairly prejudicial the trial court has no discretion or authority to exclude
it. Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251, 1259 (Fla. 2014).

In this instance, our decision in Council provided
controlling Florida case law to support the conclusion that the proffered
testimony of Appellant’s biomechanics expert was relevant to the disputed
issues concerning velocity and the directionality of forces involved in the
accident, and thus, to the issue of causation. The trial court in this case was
aware of this binding precedent but inexplicably elected to discount and
discard its authority. This was a clear abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, the final judgment entered in favor of Appellee
is reversed and the cause of action is remanded for a new trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED. (MAKAR and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.)

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982