Schmidt v. Van
65 So. 3d 1105
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Vans sue Schmidt for injuries from an October 2007 auto collision; Schmidt concedes liability for the accident but contests causation of Vans' injury.
- Vans claim the 2007 crash caused Vans’ cervical injury requiring fusion in 2009; medical causation supported by three expert witnesses, including a defense witness.
- Jury returns verdict for Schmidt, finding Vans did not suffer injury causally connected to the 2007 accident.
- Vans move for a new trial; trial court grants it, concluding the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence based on expert causation testimony, while discounting lay testimony.
- Trial court emphasized lack of technical causation testimony and deemed Vans’ credibility and preexisting degeneration overwhelming in favor of causation.
- appellate court reverses, holding the trial court abused its discretion and should reinstate the jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion granting a new trial for manifest weight of the evidence | Schmidt argues verdict weight supported by expert conflict and lay testimony | Vans contend expert causation testimony requires new trial | Abuse of discretion; reverse and reinstate verdict |
| Whether the jury could reject expert causation testimony in light of conflicting lay evidence | Jury should credit doctors' causation opinions | Jury must accept expert causation over lay testimony | Jury may reject expert testimony consistent with lay evidence |
| Whether trial court improperly subordinated lay credibility and non-technical evidence to expert testimony | Expert opinions control causation findings | Expert opinions are dispositive on causation | Incorrect; trial court erred by discounting lay and other non-expert evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490 (Fla.1999) (abuse of discretion standard for new trial reviews; weight of evidence)
- Corbett v. Wilson, 48 So.3d 131 (Fla.5th DCA 2010) (legal premises for new trial must be correct)
- Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So.2d 495 (Fla.1993) (jury may weigh conflicting expert and lay testimony)
- Shaw v. Puleo, 159 So.2d 641 (Fla.1964) (jury may accept or reject expert testimony)
- Wald v. Grainger, 64 So.3d 1201 (Fla.2011) (jury credibility and weight given to expert testimony must be based on evidence)
- Chomont v. Ward, 103 So.2d 635 (Fla.1958) (jury credibility in evaluating conflicting testimony)
- Roach v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 598 So.2d 246 (Fla.1st DCA 1992) (jury may assess credibility of witnesses)
- Jordan v. Brown, 855 So.2d 231 (Fla.1st DCA 2003) (premises for reversing weight-of-evidence rulings)
- Trujillo v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 753 So.2d 1256 (Fla.2000) (appellate review of new trial decisions)