Van v. Schmidt
122 So. 3d 243
| Fla. | 2013Background
- Van sued Schmidt for injuries from a 2007 rear-end collision; liability was conceded and the dispute centered on causation of Van’s neck injury and later cervical fusion.
- All medical experts (plaintiffs’ and defense) testified the 2007 collision was at least partly causative of Van’s neck injury, though experts differed on linkage to other complaints (e.g., lower back pain) and effect of preexisting degeneration.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Van suffered no injury from the 2007 collision.
- The trial court granted the Vans’ motion for a new trial, concluding the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and relying in part on the view that the jury could not reject the experts’ uncontroverted testimony.
- The First District reversed, holding the trial court erred as a matter of law because a jury may reject expert testimony; it ordered judgment entered on the jury verdict.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve conflict with the Fourth District (Kuebler), to clarify the standard of appellate review when a trial court’s new-trial order is premised, at least in part, on an error of law, and to decide the proper remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of appellate review when trial court grants new trial based partly on an error of law | Trial court’s grant should be reversed because it rested on erroneous legal premise (jury cannot reject uncontradicted expert testimony). | Appellate court should defer to trial court’s broad discretion under Stuckey; findings of law in new-trial orders deserve deference. | Court: Conclusions of law receive de novo review (no deference); factual findings and credibility determinations remain entitled to deference. |
| Whether a jury may reject uncontradicted expert testimony | Jury can reject expert testimony if there is a reasonable basis in the evidence (e.g., conflicting lay testimony, impeachment). | Trial court had reason to order new trial because expert testimony made causation essentially uncontroverted and lay evidence insufficient for non-experts to infer no causation. | Court: Law is that juries may reject expert testimony, but trial courts may still weigh evidence and credibility; legal conclusions about evidence receive no deference. |
| Proper role of appellate court after identifying trial-court legal error in new-trial order | Reinstate jury verdict because trial court’s legal error rendered its order unsupportable. | Remand to trial court for reconsideration because trial court’s factual findings/credibility may have independently supported the new trial. | Court: If appellate court cannot determine whether trial court would have granted new trial absent the legal error, remand for reconsideration applying correct legal principles; do not automatically reinstate verdict. |
| Whether First District misapplied Stuckey/E.R. Squibb by reweighing evidence | First District properly reversed because legal error required reversal and jury verdict was supported by evidence. | First District overstepped by reweighing evidence and not deferring to trial court’s factual credibility judgments. | Court: First District correctly identified legal error but misapplied precedent by reweighing facts; quashed its judgment and remanded for trial-court reconsideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Farnes, 697 So.2d 825 (Fla. 1997) (trial judge may grant new trial when manifest weight of evidence warrants and should consider witness credibility)
- Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1999) (appellate review of new-trial orders is highly deferential; apply reasonableness test)
- Schmidt v. Van, 65 So.3d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (trial court erred as matter of law in concluding jury could not reject uncontradicted expert testimony)
- Kuebler v. Ferris, 65 So.3d 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (district court upheld trial court’s new-trial grant; interpreted deference to trial court differently)
- Corbett v. Wilson, 48 So.3d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (reversed new-trial grant where trial court’s ruling rested on incorrect legal premise)
- Jordan v. Brown, 855 So.2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (reversed new-trial grant where trial court’s factual findings lacked record support)
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1959) (historical context rejecting competent-substantial-evidence standard for new-trial review)
- Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla. 1978) (orders granting new trial must state specific grounds to permit meaningful appellate review)
- Tri-Pak Mach., Inc. v. Hartshorn, 644 So.2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (legal conclusions in trial orders are reviewed de novo)