Corbett v. Wilson
48 So. 3d 131
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Corbett admitted liability in an April 2007 auto accident case against Wilsons for personal injuries allegedly including permanent traumatic brain injury and PTSD.
- A two-week trial focused on causation, permanency, and damages; jury found Corbett legally caused Wilsons’ injuries.
- Jury awarded Ms. Wilson $15,000 for past medical expenses and Mr. Wilson $10,000 for loss of consortium; no permanent injury and no awards for pain, future damages, or future loss of consortium.
- Wilsons moved for additur or, in the alternative, new trial, arguing unrebutted expert testimony established permanency as a matter of law.
- Trial court granted new trial, reasoning the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and relied on misapplication of testimony from Dr. Afield and other experts.
- Appellate court reversed, reinstating the jury verdict and reinstating the standard that juries may weigh and reject expert credibility, and that prior inconsistent statements can be substantive evidence under Florida law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence | Dr. Afield’s deposition was admissible as substantive evidence under 90.801(2)(a). | Prior inconsistent testimony cannot be used substantively if not admitted or properly confronted. | Prior inconsistent statements may be substantive evidence when sworn and cross-examined. |
| Whether the trial court correctly awarded a new trial on manifest weight | There was unrebutted expert testimony supporting permanency; verdict not against weight of the evidence. | The unrebutted expert testimony could be rejected by the jury; inconsistencies supported a new trial. | Verdict reinstated; trial court abused discretion by granting new trial on weight grounds. |
| Role of jury in weighing expert testimony | Jury must credit expert testimony as presented and not be required to follow unrebutted experts. | Jury can weigh credibility and reject unrebutted expert testimony. | Jury may weigh and reject expert testimony; verdict allowed to stand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490 (Fla.1999) (abuse of discretion standard for new trial review; weight of evidence)
- Tomlinson v. Peninsular Naval Stores, Co., 61 Fla. 453, 55 So. 548 (Fla. 1911) (prior law on evidentiary use of inconsistent testimony)
- Thomas v. State, 289 So.2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (procedural use of inconsistent testimony)
- Wallace v. Rashkow, 270 So.2d 743 (Fla.3d DCA 1972) (evidence credibility considerations)
- State v. Green, 667 So.2d 756 (Fla.1995) (pre-evidence code prior inconsistent statements admissible)
- State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So.2d 1199 (Fla.1986) (evidence code adoption of prior inconsistent statements)
- Moore v. State, 452 So.2d 559 (Fla.1984) (basis for admissibility under §90.801(2)(a))
- Pearce v. State, 880 So.2d 561 (Fla.2004) (considers sworn prior statements and cross-examination)