Brittany Haney v. Leslie Sloan
214 So. 3d 718
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In March 2012, Sloan was injured in a car accident; Haney admitted liability for Sloan’s neck injury but disputed causation of other injuries.
- Sloan later had a December 2013 separate motor-vehicle accident and sought additional treatment (chiropractic, pain management, TMJ diagnosis).
- Sloan sued only Haney for injuries from the first accident and sought past medical expenses (pre- and post-December 2013) among other damages.
- After conflicting expert and treatment-record testimony about what injuries and bills stemmed from which accident, the trial court granted Sloan’s directed verdict motion that attributed all past medical expenses (~$130,577.18) to the first accident.
- The jury returned a $1,630,577.18 verdict for Sloan, which included the directed-attributed past medical expenses; Sloan argued future damages on that basis at closing.
- The First DCA reviewed whether the directed verdict was proper given conflicting evidence about apportionment of injuries and expenses between the two accidents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a directed verdict attributing all past medical expenses to the first accident was proper | Sloan: evidence did not permit apportionment; therefore all past medical expenses should be attributed to the first tortfeasor | Haney: evidence allowed the jury to apportion some post-December 2013 treatment to the second accident or other causes | Reversed: directed verdict improper because conflicting evidence existed; jury must decide apportionment |
| Whether apportionment is a jury question when successive accidents occur | Sloan: jury must attribute all injuries to the first accident if they cannot be segregated; court should direct verdict | Haney: apportionment can be made by jury based on records and testimony showing some treatments tied to the second accident | Court: apportionment is for the jury; trial court should exercise extreme caution before removing it from jury |
| Whether testimony and records supported attributing post-second-accident bills to second accident | Sloan: her experts largely tied injuries to first accident | Haney: medical records, two patient files, and testimony provided basis to attribute some bills to second accident | Court: record contained conflicting evidence (doctor unaware of second accident, chiropractor’s post-accident notes, separate files) supporting jury consideration |
| Whether the erroneous directed verdict required a new trial on damages beyond past medical expenses | Sloan: directed verdict limited to past medicals so other damages need not be retried | Haney: Sloan’s closing relied on court’s instruction to the jury, tainting consideration of future damages and pain and suffering | Court: error was harmful because plaintiff argued future damages based on the directed verdict; new trial on damages required |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. Lyons, 763 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2000) (when successive accidents occur, jury must apportion injuries or hold earlier tortfeasor responsible if apportionment impossible)
- In re Standard Jury Instructions In Civil Cases — Report No. 13–02, 135 So. 3d 281 (Fla. 2014) (jury instructions on causation and apportionment principles)
- Pugliese v. Terek, 117 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (reversible error to direct verdict where evidence conflicts on causation/apportionment)
- Moore v. Perry, 944 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (same principle regarding conflicting evidence and directed verdicts)
- Houghton v. Bond, 680 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (trial court must exercise extreme caution before removing issues from the jury)
- Van v. Schmidt, 122 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2013) (jury may reject expert testimony; credibility is for the jury)
- Special v. West Boca Medical Center, 160 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014) (an error is harmful unless the benefitted party proves no reasonable possibility the error contributed to the verdict)