Wald v. Grainger
64 So. 3d 1201
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Wald, Jr. injured in a car crash with Felos, who admitted fault.
- Wald claimed neck and back injuries; thigh injury allegedly not claimed for ongoing pain.
- Treating physician Tan testified permanency for neck, back, elbow, and thigh; defense expert Hogshead contested neck/back permanency.
- Trial court directed verdict on permanency for the right thigh; jury awarded over $1 million for damages.
- First District reversed, holding permanency was a jury issue and that the jury could reject uncontradicted testimony; Florida Supreme Court granted review.
- Supreme Court quashed First District’s decision and reinstated the jury verdict and Wald’s damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is permanency primarily a jury question? | Grainger argued permanency should be jury issue | First District held permanency is a jury issue | Permanency can be directed verdict when evidence supports noneconomically |
| May a jury reject uncontradicted expert testimony on permanency? | Jury may reject expert testimony | Jury is free to reject any testimony | Jury can reject with a reasonable basis; not if testimony is undisputed |
| Was the directed verdict on thigh permanency proper? | Thigh permanency supported by expert | Directed verdict inappropriate due to jury weighing of evidence | Directed verdict proper where no conflicting basis supports permanency |
| How does §627.737(2) affect noneconomic damages for the thigh injury? | Pain, suffering, etc. compensable if part of permanent injury | Statute limits noneconomic damages to injuries with permanent component | Statute allows noneconomic damages where any part of injury is permanent |
| Was there preservation error related to jury instructions or verdict form? | Grainger preserved nothing on permanency | No preservation; waived | No preserved challenge; waiver for these issues |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Orr, 660 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (permanency determinations; jury should be directed when no inference supports verdict)
- Evans v. Montenegro, 728 So.2d 270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (directed verdict on permanency proper if defendant impeaches or presents conflicting evidence)
- Weygant v. Fort Myers Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 640 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 1994) (jury may reject medical testimony given incomplete or false predicates)
- Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So.2d 495 (Fla.1993) (jury may reject expert testimony based on flawed medical history or inconsistencies)
- Chomont v. Ward, 103 So.2d 635 (Fla.1958) (jury could doubt plaintiff’s reported injuries with inconsistent testimony)
- Williamson v. Superior Ins. Co., 746 So.2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (uncontroverted medical testimony cannot be arbitrarily rejected)
- Campbell v. Griffith, 971 So.2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (uncontroverted medical testimony requires proper consideration by jury)