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.)

* *
*