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
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • 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

Recent Posts

  • Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Appeal from order awarding attorney’s fees and costs and attorney’s fees for fees incurred in litigating amount of fees reversed in light of appellate court’s reversal of substantive portion of summary judgment on which awards were based and remand with instructions — Reversal is without prejudice to filing new appeal after trial court has concluded its labor
  • Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were factual issues as to insured’s compliance with post-loss obligations and any ensuing prejudice — Remand for further proceedings
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Assignee’s breach of contract action against insurer — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor after paying post-lawsuit appraisal award within time limit required by the policy where appraisal process confirmed that insurer had wrongly denied paying assignee a specified amount of benefits under the policy — Payment of postsuit appraisal award did not render case moot — Remand for further proceedings on assignee’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs
  • Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Failure to state on the record the reasons for granting motion for summary judgment, as required by amended rule — Remand to allow court an opportunity to state reasons for its decision “with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review”
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Presuit demand letter — Presuit demand letter did not comply with statute where amount claimed to be due was not sufficiently precise — Although letter asked insurer to advise plaintiff if demand letter was defective in any way, nothing in language of section 627.736 requires an insurer to give notice to the insured or an assignee that a demand letter is defective

Blog Archives

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. Abbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982